In responding to a rebuttal from Anti-War.com, that calls for a total withdrawal from Iraq (that I agree with), Pitt responds with the typical DLC-type line about maintaining security, and embraces a "we need the oil anyway" sentiment. This thinking is what keeps the war raging, and people stupid and oil-habit addicted.
Pitt has been increasingly center-Left, slippery at best, ever since he became a paid Truthout.
I'm not sure if it's constructive to jump into the middle of the argument, given how lost Pitt clearly is.
Larry Chin (www.onlinejournal.com)
-------------------
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/10/95513/7500
1. Like it or lump it, but the world economy is addicted to Mideast oil. An immediate U.S. withdrawal could precipitate a total collapse of the oil industry there, causing a global oil shock. That chaos could spread to Saudi Arabia, where the regime is not on the most stable of ground. If the House of Saud were to fall, all that oil could fall into the hands of Wahabbist extremists, and at that point, chaos would be given a whole new definition. The best-case scenario for an immediate withdrawal has Iraq becoming a Shia fundamentalist state allied with Iran on top of all that oil, a scenario that frightens anyone with a long-term foreign policy and economic outlook.
If it sounds like I am arguing in favor of the Halliburton boys plumbing Iraq's oil or that I am arguing in favor of Bush's Saudi pals, I'm not. But, as Molly Ivins says, you dance with them what brung ya. Ignoring these realities is dangerous and irresponsible. If you own a car, use electricity, eat produce that you did not grow yourself, if you know anyone who fits this description, or if you do any number of a hundred other things that are based on petroleum, you have a dog in this hunt. Simply wishing it wasn't true is no answer.
_______________________
Bush Phenomena explained over 25 years ago in the movie Three Days of the Condor author: Michael C. Ruppert
But there is a deeper part of human nature which covers the planet in a sickly, light-sweet-crude blanket of denial. It is best exemplified from the closing lines of Sidney Pollack's 1975 Three Days of the Condor, perhaps the best spy movie ever made. As FTW has shown in recent stories - using declassified CIA documents - the CIA was well aware of Peak Oil in the mid 1970s. Three Days of the Condor took that awful truth and said then, what few in the post-9/11 world have had the courage to say. I can guarantee you that it is the overriding rationale in Dick Cheney's mind, in the mind of every senior member of the Bush administration, and in the mind of whomever it is that will be chosen as the 2004 Democratic Party nominee. Getting rid of Bush will not address the underlying causative factors of energy and money and any solution that does not address those issues will prove futile. Turner (Robert Redford): "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East ?"
Higgins (Cliff Robertson): " Are you crazy?"
Turner: " Am I?"
Higgins: "Look, Turner... "
Turner: "Do we have plans?"
Higgins: "No. Absolutely not. We have games. That's all. We play games. What if? How many men? What would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a régime? That's what we're paid to do."
Turner: "Go on. So Atwood just took the game too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he?"
Higgins: "It was a renegade operation. Atwood knew 54-12 would never authorize it. There was no way, not with the heat on the Company."
Turner: "What if there hadn't been any heat? Supposing I hadn't stumbled on a plan? Say nobody had?"
Higgins: "Different ball game. The fact is there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was alright. The plan would have worked."
Turner: "Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?"
Higgins: "No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner : " Ask them."
Higgins: "Not now - then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them." From : <Pass58 at aol.com> Sent : Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:20 AM To : mwlaird at yahoo.com, mahko at majestysmonkey.com, jstrahl at well.com, don at irrerevo.net, jchamkis at bga.com, lark2 at mindspring.com, jwanzala at hotmail.com, smallaxe007 at hotmail.com, shiuhung at sbcglobal.net, bzwicker at sympatico.ca Subject : (c) Pitt wants the oil
In responding to a rebuttal from Anti-War.com, that calls for a total withdrawal from Iraq (that I agree with), Pitt responds with the typical DLC-type line about maintaining security, and embraces a "we need the oil anyway" sentiment. This thinking is what keeps the war raging, and people stupid and oil-habit addicted.
Pitt has been increasingly center-Left, slippery at best, ever since he became a paid Truthout.
I'm not sure if it's constructive to jump into the middle of the argument, given how lost Pitt clearly is.
Larry Chin (www.onlinejournal.com)
-------------------
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/10/95513/7500
1. Like it or lump it, but the world economy is addicted to Mideast oil. An immediate U.S. withdrawal could precipitate a total collapse of the oil industry there, causing a global oil shock. That chaos could spread to Saudi Arabia, where the regime is not on the most stable of ground. If the House of Saud were to fall, all that oil could fall into the hands of Wahabbist extremists, and at that point, chaos would be given a whole new definition. The best-case scenario for an immediate withdrawal has Iraq becoming a Shia fundamentalist state allied with Iran on top of all that oil, a scenario that frightens anyone with a long-term foreign policy and economic outlook.
If it sounds like I am arguing in favor of the Halliburton boys plumbing Iraq's oil or that I am arguing in favor of Bush's Saudi pals, I'm not. But, as Molly Ivins says, you dance with them what brung ya. Ignoring these realities is dangerous and irresponsible. If you own a car, use electricity, eat produce that you did not grow yourself, if you know anyone who fits this description, or if you do any number of a hundred other things that are based on petroleum, you have a dog in this hunt. Simply wishing it wasn't true is no answer.
_______________________
Bush Phenomena explained over 25 years ago in the movie Three Days of the Condor author: Michael C. Ruppert
But there is a deeper part of human nature which covers the planet in a sickly, light-sweet-crude blanket of denial. It is best exemplified from the closing lines of Sidney Pollack's 1975 Three Days of the Condor, perhaps the best spy movie ever made. As FTW has shown in recent stories - using declassified CIA documents - the CIA was well aware of Peak Oil in the mid 1970s. Three Days of the Condor took that awful truth and said then, what few in the post-9/11 world have had the courage to say. I can guarantee you that it is the overriding rationale in Dick Cheney's mind, in the mind of every senior member of the Bush administration, and in the mind of whomever it is that will be chosen as the 2004 Democratic Party nominee. Getting rid of Bush will not address the underlying causative factors of energy and money and any solution that does not address those issues will prove futile. Turner (Robert Redford): "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East ?"
Higgins (Cliff Robertson): " Are you crazy?"
Turner: " Am I?"
Higgins: "Look, Turner... "
Turner: "Do we have plans?"
Higgins: "No. Absolutely not. We have games. That's all. We play games. What if? How many men? What would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a régime? That's what we're paid to do."
Turner: "Go on. So Atwood just took the game too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he?"
Higgins: "It was a renegade operation. Atwood knew 54-12 would never authorize it. There was no way, not with the heat on the Company."
Turner: "What if there hadn't been any heat? Supposing I hadn't stumbled on a plan? Say nobody had?"
Higgins: "Different ball game. The fact is there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was alright. The plan would have worked."
Turner: "Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?"
Higgins: "No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner : " Ask them."
Higgins: "Not now - then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them."