This article ran in the Sun newspapers in Canada recently. I'd like to point out that Canadian (and other) soldiers are now stablilizing Afghanistan for American oil interests. Canadians are dying believing that they are serving to free the Afghanis and bring about democracy. In reality, they are being used to stabilize Afghanistan for a U.S. oil pipeline...


THESE WARS ARE ABOUT OIL, NOT DEMOCRACY

By ERIC MARGOLIS

PARIS -- The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has emerged.

Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq's oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.

Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony.

As former fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV's, not democracy.

Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan's coast where tankers will transport it to the West.



The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world's last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.

PIPELINE DEAL

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war against China.

The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route -- and installed former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."

ADDED BENEFIT

From Washington's viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.

India's energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan.

Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.

Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The U.S. is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America's world power. Let's be realistic. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil, nothing else.
posted by:
Willow
Canada
  • Thank you for this article and information.
    What was the first Gulf War about, in terms of why we were there?
    • As far as I know...

      Iraq believed that Kuwait (which is full of oil) was part of its territory and, under Sadaam Hussein, attempted to take it over. The U.S. and other countries fought this takeover. You know...because only the U.S. is allowed to occupy other sovereign nations and claim their oil. :)

      I'm sure this is an ultra simplistic view of that war...I'm no expert. But the base of it was oil and who had rights to it. I imagine Kuwait is now friendly to large American oil companies and willing to sell to them...whereas, if the oil had come under Sadaam/Iraq's control, it would not have been.
      • There is too much America hating on this tribe and on Naked for Peace.
        I'm commenting, because I was invited to both, by both moderators, and they both have peaceful themes.
        I understand your point of view, Willow, but people who are citizens here and sound as if their very stable, I don't understand. Last election it was only Bush bashing, and now, it's hate from within.
        To say this is what makes America unique, and it's what we fight for, and why we're fighting, both good reasons and bad.
        To immigrate here or be a citizen and to help topple America is treason and I believe is punished by hanging.
        This sounds bad, but I wonder which countries do more to create a liberating and transcending lifestyle than us for it's citizens and tries to help others.
        I'm not saying there isn't truth in these posts, but to strictly say America is only a wicked country and never post or to censor information about what this country and/or it's citizens do to benefit other countries and people around the world is terrible.
        • I never said America is a wicked country, and I am not "America hating" as you put it.

          You have to understand that there is a big difference between "America," the American people, and the people running the country at this point in time. The Bush administration does not have the support of the majority of the people in America. Even Republicans (people within Bush's own party) are opposed to these policies. Bush and his team are following their own agendas, plain and simple...while bankrupting the country. This is also a known fact. They are waging this war on money borrowed from China.

          I am simply pointing out that the current U.S. administration is doing things in its own interest (and in the interests of businesses with which it has financial ties) rather than in the interests of its citizens. Securing oil rights for American corporations using the blood of its own citizens is not right, in my books. Especially not when they are propagandizing the public and claiming that the reason for the war is the spread of democracy and the "crackdown on terrorism."

          Democracy gives us the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong. It gives us the right to criticize elected officials. This is not treason. This is a democratic right.

          Also, I am not an American citizen. I am Canadian. I see my own country's soldiers dying in Afghanistan believing that they are fighting for democracy. In reality, the hidden agenda is stabilizing the area for a U.S. oil pipeline. This is something the public should know about...so that they can make informed decisions about whether this war is righteous and whether we want to continue there.

          How is pointing out known facts, published in mainstream Canadian dailies, treasonous or promoting hatred?

          I find your point-of-view incredibly naive.
          • Yes Willow, I am naive and outfront with that, because I want to elicit the entire story.
            I could say what I know and feel about the good presence the United States has had in the history of the world, but I sense a climate here where everything I say will be picked apart.
            In all fairness, that's much better than the pm's and behind the back insincerity, you all stand up and say what you feel and think. Also, this is everywhere, and at least the Cool Earth Party is trying to do something about not only what they see as what's wrong with this country, but hopefully as the tribe name suggests, make the planet a better place without wiping out America.
            If the Bush administration does not have the support of the majority of the United States, then why couldn't Gore and Kerry build up bigger voting bases so there were never close or controversial elections?
            Gore is an impressive person, but the U.S. President has to comfort the people and represent us to the world, and to make Bush seem better at this is a sad statement.
            I was told that Al decided to wear blue jeans and start relating to the average American about two months before the November election. Kerry was a nice enough guy, but maybe not presidential material. Why did the Democrats get so delusional about the chances of these two men, and why so much finger pointing and infighting?
            As far as telling the whole side of the story, I am no fan of President Bush, but I haven't lost touch with the fact that he is a twice elected president and I don't fall under the temptation which is one of my beefs about this country, where we target our most famous and accomplished first, then sit back and enjoy the train wreck. I think this is where the stereotype of our citizens may be an embarrassment.
            I know I can seem an asshole sometimes and naive at others, but you did invite me here for some reason.
            The subject of this forum is 'thank goodness the media is finally saying what a bad job this administration is doing". Huh?
            George W. Bush has the prototype environmentally state of the art home, with many of the things you'll see in the future worldwide. He has kept us safe since September 11th, and has said many time we need to come up with a new energy source, as McCain is saying.
            I know you all think they're lying, how shocking for someone to do in politics!
            The only reason this guy kept getting what he wanted is everyone wanted so desperately to believe he was the village idiot, he cleaned up, with a high I.Q. and being underestimated.
            I have my own personal reasons to more than dislike the lame duck president, and it wouldn't shock me if he was aware of that, but he is the first polititian to do what he thinks is right, and never caved to public opinion or how he'll be remembered in history.
            He may be remembered as being misuderstood and actually did a good job, it may ben generations from now, but he made up his mind and did what he felt he had to do.
            He doesn't take himself that seriously. I really like Bill Clinton, but before Bush, Bill was the least vain president, not that all the other were so much.
            Bush may be remembered as the worst president we've ever had, as most, including myself, feel and think at this time. Doesn't matter, even his staunchest haters probably agree that he felt the right thing was more important than any personal goal.
            If he's remembered any way at all in a generation or two, he either was doing the right thing, as it's a miracle we wake up every morning and has been in the entire history of the world, or we as a planet got very very lucky...
            If 'even' Republicans are opposed to what is said Bush does and does alone, then how can it be an evil conspirosy?
            There is a hole in the ground in my city and many good men dead. The Iraqi civilians the most tragic of all, but most not by the hands of this country.
            We ran and ran with the U.S.S. Cole and the other acts against America, because as I felt and still feel, you must always avoid war, violence and all fights at all costs. You can never win those, or even an arguement, debate or chess game, because there's always tomorrow.
            This is the coldest thing you may have ever heard, but 3000+ dead in Manhattan and all those good young men in the two wars are a black eye and bloody nose compared to the natural and manmade disaters worldwide. If we are to be an open society, then we risk this. Kill innocent people and you will be punished.
            I am so heartbroken over all this and Iraq. If there is any postive, Islam, the religion, not the milatary goals, which is just that, not anything spiritual, has become publicized and more popular than ever, and I don't see America compaining. New York City has stopped thinking of Muslim and Arabic culture as anything from exotic to alien, it's familiar, accepted and perhaps discrimination is diminishing toward that culure here, after many sad occurances to innocent people by idiots a few years ago.
            I happen to live in an Afghani and Pakistani neighborhood. There aren't very many Arabic people in my part of New York, and I have news for you, most are third generation Americans, more American than most of us.
            For such a wicked place, sorry Willow, rather, a place run by wicked people, we embrace every culture, want to learn and become more like everyone and want to change ourselves, not anyone else or impose...
            We love Canadians who hate us, and many want to know why so we can learn and change.
            I want to know the truth as badly as all of you. If you are telling the truth, only in America will the guilty be brought to justice.
            If there is any truth in what the government says, don't we need to resolve this? No one wants war, but has there ever been peace that didn't follow one? I wish we can neither embrace enemies, nor exclusively take it to them, which is why I love this tribe, Tribe and the internet so much!
            You're right about the right to say anything, isn't that a great thing about us?
            I only said if you use an open door policy in a free open society to plot it's downfall from within, that's the worst offense.
            If what you say is true Willow, we must keep telling that truth, if what Bush says is true, then we need to keep telling the truth.
            How can two people tell two opposite viewpoints and both be right? Simple, that's reality. And there are more than two sides, otherwise it would be a line drawing.

            • (The) W, you are apparently under the impression that the two-party system the U.S. is operating under is a healthy democracy. I am not. To me, there is little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, and many, many people have their interests and concerns neglected under these heavily corporate-mandated establishment parties. Voter turn-out in the United States tells me that many, many people are disenfranchised from the democratic process. In other words, they don't see any point in voting because they don't believe it will change anything. I can't fault them there. Not to mention that the corporate media keeps people in the dark about the real issues concerning them...so people are voting in ignorance of crucial facts. To me, this is not a properly functioning democracy. Government is not operating transparently in the interests of the citizens...regardless of the party in power.

              I don't have a tendency to picking apart the "best and brightest" as you suggest. I have a tendency to criticizing people who are doing the wrong thing, as I see it - especially elected officials. I do not tolerate lies, manipulations and hidden agendas.

              I'm not sure what the statement about Canadians hating "you" means...are you referring to Americans? Again, most Canadians understand that the American people are not represented by the current government and its policies. Most Canadians I know don't hate Americans. They disagree with and strongly oppose the policies of the current U.S. administration.
              • Votes never really mean anything, because you are voting on maybe 3 or 4 issues. Well, that doesn't reffer to anybody in this tribe I think, but most people do. Plus there is so much behind the seens. There is a saying about Laws. There like sausages. You might like them, but you don't want to find out how. Only that these sausages are uncooked, and have been on the table for a week.
      • Willow, your points on Iraq and Kuwait are good, but here are a few others:

        Kuwait was also slant drilling into Iraqi Ramaila oil fields. Iraq saw this as theft.

        In addition, the Kuwaiti monarchy went against OPEC quotas and increased oil production by 40%, bringing down the price of oil on the world market, something Saddam Hussein called economic warfare.

        Saddam Hussein, at that time an ally of the United States in the wars against Iran and the Kurds who had received massive U.S. military backing in those wars, assembled troops on the Kuwaiti border, perhaps at first just to threaten Kuwait.

        Yet, US ambassador April Glaspie, said in a meeting with Saddam Hussein, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

        Saddam Hussein saw this as a green light from his powerful U.S. ally to invade Kuwait. Soon after, he did.

        But Saddam Hussein was set up by the United States because the U.S. wanted a war. The reason for this was to prop up the profits of the military industrial complex. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and the military industries needed an excuse to keep spending billions of dollars of our tax dollars on the military.

        Saddam Hussein was the perfect boogie-man to meet their needs. The U.S. corporate media pointed out that he had murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, never mentioning why they were silent when the operations were taking place with weapons supplied by the United States.

        The U.S. corporate media also claimed that premature babies in Kuwait had been taken out of incubators and left to die so that the incubators could be shipped back to Baghdad. The whole story was a complete fabrication, and the corporate media even admitted it after the war, but it served its purpose in swaying many people who otherwise questioned going to war for the repressive Kuwaiti monarchy.

        In addition, President George H.W. Bush claimed as reason for war, "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." This was based on supposed Pentagon satellite photos. Yet, from commercial satellite photos acquired by the St. Petersburg Times, this was proven to be a lie, the desert Bush senior and the Pentagon referred to was nothing but empty desert.


        While playing up false stories of baby killers and the new Hitler that was going to march across the Middle East, the U.S. corporate media ignored Kuwait’s theft of Iraqi oil as well the historic claim of Iraq to Kuwait, with Kuwait being a construct of British imperialism to divide the territory and limit Iraqi access to the sea.

        In addition, the U.S. corporate media completely ignored the repressive nature of the Kuwaiti monarchy that U.S. troops were sent to fight and die for. The vast majority of those living in Kuwait were denied the right to vote and other more basic rights. This included women and people labeled foreigners, many of whom had been in Kuwait for generations. Some who had ancestors in Kuwait prior to 1920 were even denied Kuwaiti citizenship. Palestinian workers built modern Kuwait, but they were kept in second class status. This situation was so bad that many Palestinians aided the Iraqi troops and saw them as a liberation army. After the U.S. re-installed the monarchy, most Kuwaiti Palestinians were driven out of Kuwait.

        For women in Kuwait the Iraqi invasion also brought hope. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Under Saddam Hussein, over 50% of Iraqi doctors were women. Iraqi women were allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They were allowed to drive. Iraqi women could even freely criticize men. In addition, Iraqi women had the right to work and control their own funds. This was in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive monarchy of Kuwait women had / have no rights what-so-ever.

        In opposition to the U.S. war, I played a central role in organizing Minnesota Students Against the War and the Twin Cities Anti-War Coalition. We visited schools across the state and gave speeches, organized mass demonstrations, organized teach-ins, and toured U.S. soldiers who were refusing to fight.

        My speeches at mass demonstrations pointed out that not only was this U.S. war imperialist and wrong, but went on to point to the need for the left to break the pro-imperialist Democrat Party while also pointing to the need to nationalize the oil industry in order to stop oil wars and end global warming. These speeches were enthusiastically received…

        I hope this writing so-far helps answer the question. I’ll write more on this later, dealing with the war, the aftermath, what happened under Clinton, and finish this piece up as an article.
  • "Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil fields."

    "Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony."

    I like the article willow..

    And there is nothing America hating about it..
    It is about the corporate powers that be and the games they play..

    Thanks for posting it and never mind the bollocks...

    • I agree with Harmen, it's a good article making important points that have been mostly ignored in the corporate media.
      • Willow,
        thanks for the intellegent, honest and informative response to my thread.
        Voting is important, because if you protest by a non vote, it makes things worse, trust me, I know.
        Steven, thank you for inviting me to this tribe, and the information.
        However, it's only a portion of the scenario.
        I have heard so many horror stories from the right about the left and visa versa. So many bad things the U.S. presidents have both theoretically done that's never been publicized, I had the same response, can I hear something good, like Bush's state of the art enviromentally prototypical home, or Jimmy Carter updating the U. S. miliatary, for which Reagan took credit.
        As far as the 'Republicrats', intresting consprirocy theory, but there are major differences both good and bad, or else why such intense campaigns and media coverage at this point?
        I really think there will be the Green Party and the Libertarians in the House and Senate in 2012.
        Are we play acting in America? I doubt it.
        McCain needs to seperate himself from this unpopular administration.
        Obama needs to seperate himself from everyone who hates caucasions. I know I am struggling, and I don't think white people in poverty or feel themselves slaves really are lying about having a million dollars in the bank.
        We fight for the right to say we hate America or at least want change very badly. We fight the people who surpress that in other places.
        News bulletin:
        Even the harshest of dictators needs the approval of their people and can't last, even if the opressed public is afraid to speak and show their unhappiness.
        Here's some good points about the United States:
        1) We try to be the world's law and judicial system.
        2) We try to contribute scientific knowledge to improve the planet and solve crisis'.
        3) We created comic books and jazz music.
        4) We welcome every culture and faith and never want them to change one bit.
        5) We ultimately want peace and freedom worldwide.
        6) We want nuclear disarmament.
        7) We have a checks and balances philosophy to halt the danger of power unchecked or corrupted.
        8) Likewise for the free market, where a new idea or invention improves and evolves the entire business place.
        9) We are friendly and peaceful as a rule rather than an exception.
        10) We become friends with our enemies, hopefully sooner than later.
        Thanks...
        To the new Cool Earth...
        • I don't exactly agree with most of those points...I think they tell only a superficial story.

          1) We try to be the world's law and judicial system. - Yes, but has the U.S. proven itself to be worthy of being the world's judge and jury? I think there are too many cases of the U.S. making "rulings" that favour itself and its allies (rather than being balanced and fair) for it to be impartial and knowledgeable enough to continue in that role. The U.S. is a young soul without the wisdom to be truly successful there, imo.
          2) We try to contribute scientific knowledge to improve the planet and solve crisis'. - If that were completely true, North America would be functioning on green power at this point, we would have green/electric cars, and everything we use would be recycled. We wouldn't be squandering fresh water building swimming pools in the desert or chasing after a dying energy source (by force) that causes global warming and air pollution.
          3) We created comic books and jazz music. - If I'm not mistaken, jazz was created by people who were brought to America as slave labour?
          4) We welcome every culture and faith and never want them to change one bit. - Hmm...highly contentious.
          5) We ultimately want peace and freedom worldwide. - Ummm...all right. I have so many points to oppose this that I don't really know where to start. You can't create peace by waging war. That's a big point I think people are missing...
          6) We want nuclear disarmament. - I believe the U.S. wants nuclear disarmament of all countries but itself and its allies. There's a difference there.
          7) We have a checks and balances philosophy to halt the danger of power unchecked or corrupted. - Wow. Again, don't know where to start. If you do not believe George Bush Jr. is corrupt and operating unchecked, I really don't know what to say. Again, members of his own party believe he should be impeached. The majority of the country is opposed to his rule...and if the corporate-owned media actually educated the people about what is going on, rather than propagandizing them, more would be opposed to what he is doing. He was elected amid a huge scandal the first time...and probably was not the real winner of the election. He continues to wage a war that the majority of people oppose, using borrowed money, while the infrastructure of the country (health care, education, social programs) crumble. He does not care because he and his administration are going to make masses of cash from the oil they are now securing and no-bid "rebuilding" contracts...and the rest of the country be damned. This is not corrupt?
          8) Likewise for the free market, where a new idea or invention improves and evolves the entire business place. - Or governments become increasingly unable to protect their own environmental standards and social programs because things like the WTO, NAFTA, etc. put more power in the hands of corporations than in the hands of elected governments.
          9) We are friendly and peaceful as a rule rather than an exception. - The United States of America has pretty much been at war non-stop since World War II, if I'm not mistaken. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War (not a "real" war...but war-related), warfare against Cuba, involvement in the assassinations of Che Guevara and Salvador Allende - to name a couple, the Gulf War part un and part deux...not to mention many other lesser known battles. And also not to mention warfare against its own people...Kent State/Jackson State, Ruby Ridge, falsely imprisoning or intimidating protesters and counterculture revolutionaries - just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.
          10) We become friends with our enemies, hopefully sooner than later. - Again...fairly naive. The United States (and again, this refers to government policy, not the American people themselves) becomes friends with nations that can do something for it economically or who are willing to join them as allies in their warfare and world domination tactics. If a country/leader should go against the wishes of the United States, they become an enemy of the state. Sadaam Hussein is a perfect example. It's not friendship when one side is coercing the other...
          • "... too many cases of the U.S. making "rulings" that favour ...to be impartial and knowledgeable enough to continue in that role. The U.S. is a young soul without ..."
            .
            This is a good point Willow.
            What do we do when a child has misbehaved or failed, due to inexperience?
            Also, how do you see the world existing if there never was an America?
            You say you only have problems with the goverment of your neighbor, not it's people, like the U.S. has said about...say China, but we also have a checks and balance system which insures safeguards against corruption and power that has gone awry.
            Why don't we invite Republican and hard line Democrats to this tribe so we can have a well rounded debate, because after all, even if your facts are verified, to give a part of the story is slander of a country that has done many good things, and some say slander is a form of living death.

            "...green power at this point, we would have green/electric cars, and everything we use would be recycled..."

            So what you're saying is, that when the president has the most advanced prototype of an environmentally friendly house of the future and when he promises every state of the union to find new energy sources and that his own oil company is investing billions in research, that he is lying through his teeth to put more and more money in his pocket?
            What I really agree with you about, is that to seperate the upper and lower class so dramatically, eliminating the middle practically, is like removing the foundation of a building.
            If people as me, who labor and barely get by, can't get the very few things they need to be happy and healthy, then how can I and the rest perform to keep the affluent comfortable?

            "3) We created comic books and jazz music. - If I'm not mistaken, jazz was created by people who were brought to America as slave labour?"

            Well, I know I wasn't a part of that, as I have lived most of my life in poverty.
            The Americans can never apologize enough for the treatment of Native Americans, and they should be our most honored, celebrated and taken care of citizens, a travesty.
            The reality is, as far as I have been told, that the Native Americans had slaves as well, from Africa.

            "4) We welcome every culture and faith and never want them to change one bit. - Hmm...highly contentious.

            Can you give me one example?

            "5) We ultimately want peace and freedom worldwide. - Ummm...all right. I have so many points to oppose this that I don't really know where to start. You can't create peace by waging war. That's a big point I think people are missing... "

            I finally found out the hole in the ground in my city was caused by dinosaurs who have actually evolved into what we know as giant squirrels. The Giant Squirrels stomped the twin towers into submission.

            "6) We want nuclear disarmament. - I believe the U.S. wants nuclear disarmament of all countries but itself and its allies. There's a difference there."

            I believe the United States and every single country in the world is full of both good people, bad people and some in between.
            What would the world have been like if the Axis powers had won?

            "...do not believe George Bush Jr. is corrupt and operating unchecked, I really don't know what to say. Again, members of his own party believe he should be impeached."

            So...when Senator Carl Levin of Michigan stopped the president's funding to Iraq and what you have just said, we know to be true, it is really a conspirocy so well acted and executed, the only victims are the good people who want The New Cool Earth, like you, me, Steven and George Bush? Doesn't the president have children?

            " The majority of the country is opposed to his rule...and if the corporate-owned media actually educated the people about what is going on, rather than propagandizing them, more would be opposed to what he is doing. He was elected amid a huge scandal the first time..."

            Well, you obviously have an influence on how we vote, thanks to the first amendment and previous points I've made. Did Al Gore throw the election? If he hadn't done the worst campaigning in history, or close to it, there would have been no controversy.

            "and probably was not the real winner of the election."

            The electoral college is to insure the cities of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles do not pick every president, which would be Democrat. I am a Democrat, and by your own admission, from what you have learned about our politics, there would then be no checks and balances. Thank goodness we have freedom of speech.

            "He continues to wage a war that the majority of people oppose, using borrowed money, while the infrastructure of the country (health care, education, social programs) crumble. He does not care because he and his administration are going to make masses of cash from the oil they are now securing and no-bid "rebuilding" contracts...and the rest of the country be damned. This is not corrupt?"

            Because this adminstration hates their own children so much, they want us all to die screaming, and they can be smiling holding martinis and money bags?

            "...in the hands of corporations than in the hands of elected governments."

            Big problems. Being The Cool Earth Party, a positive name of so far, a negative tribe Steven has invited me to, what exactly is the answer to this dilemna?
            There probably are people who have worked so hard to become wealthy they have lost perspective. If the Universe can see, it would see the richest man is the poorest, because he wants the most.

            "The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War (not a "real" war...but war-related)"

            Can they be related?
            Question? How long in human history, combined, has there been worldwide peace?
            Estimation...Two weeks?

            "counterculture revolutionaries - just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head."

            So what's the answer?
            People want to think of the good things about the sixties, and the ideals.
            A philosopher in the 12th Century said people's differences are the most superficial of details. He was nearly killed as a heretic. I think by the 1950's we finally believed him, oh wait, you say the United States is the worst country in the world...

            "...friends with our enemies, hopefully sooner than later. - Again...fairly naive."

            I want to be optimistic.
            Do you think these guys want to fight the same people for generations? I know some want to fight us.

            "...not friendship when one side is coercing the other... "

            Countries having interests in other countries only takes a back seat to what the whole world wants, and the Universe.
            • There's nothing "negative" about informing people of facts that have been kept from them. Nor is there anything negative about forcing people to face these facts rather than allowing them to maintain their half-truth, Pollyanna view of the world. I find that people like to call me negative when they would prefer to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand. I refuse to do that.
              • I never said the tribe's intentions, and hopefully, influence on The New Cool Earth was negative.
                I just don't want to be sucked into spending all of my time debating politics rather than painting.
                I am naive and uninformed, but have a unique view, which everyone does, and everyone's unique perspective is The New Cool Earth.
                If everyone would be hopeful, positive, and yes, a bit pollyannish, how could 'they' catch us offguard?
                • How could "they" catch us offguard? Hmm...let's see. That pollyanna, "all I want to do is art. I don't want to spend my time thinking about politics" view is exactly how, imo. The refusal to actually look at what "they" are doing and call it like it is gives corrupt powers carte blanche. They bank on the ignorance and apathy of the populace...something you seem to be intent on furthering, referring to valid dissenting criticism as "treasonous," etc.

Recent topics in "*~The Cool Earth Party~*"