16. Barack Obama might just be smelling himself. Barack Obama is no diffrent telling Hispanics with a straight face to vote for him despite his ongoing and verifiable Racism against Hispanics in Illinois. I have been calling Barack Obama a racist and invite him to sue if I’m acting in bad faith. I say there is a reason a former civil rights attorney does not run for president with civil rights as a main issue and if you are a Hispanic American from the state of Illinois this concerns you. It can be verified having already been placed on repeated formal notice Barack Obama has taken no action to stop or even call for any investigation into IDHR & EEOC’s discriminatory practices that mistreat, harm , and prevent Illinois Hispanic American complainants from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to by IDHR & EEOC. There can be no dispute that since 2004 I was and still now am not being allowed to assert & memorialize a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination with IDHR & EEOC focusing instead on manipulating the charging process by IDHR & EEOC repeatedly pressuring me to sign (upon threat of dismissing my charges) only IDHR & EEOC prepared “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination in which IDHR & EEOC never memorialized my clear unambiguous claim of discrimination based on RACE that I have always maintained against Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW since 2004. Even to date IDHR & EEOC have not provided me any state law or state rule and/or federal law or federal rule that excludes and/or prohibits any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from asserting and memorializing a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination at the agency IDHR and/or at the agency EEOC. Despite bringing this to Barack Obama’s attention Barack Obama and his office having full knowledge and understanding has continued to ignore the fact that I, one of his Illinois Hispanic American constituents, is unlawfully being treated unequally by IDHR & EEOC. IDHR & EEOC (For instance but not limited to) has attempted to dissuade me, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, from filing charges, misrepresenting facts in the public record, and IDHR & EEOC is excluding & denying me , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, a fair & full opportunity to memorialize my assertion of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges during the charge process without IDHR & EEOC ever providing in a clear straightforward honest manner an actual written legal justification that shows under what actual discriminatory Illinois law and/or federal law allows IDHR & EEOC to exclude any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to & enjoy as matter of record at IDHR & EEOC. As a result of Barack Obama’s failure to insure that his Illinois Hispanic American constituents are not being prevented from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert discrimination based on RACE at the agencies IDHR & EEOC and Barack Obama’s failure to even call for an investigation to immediately redress this serious matter Barack Obama is effectively aiding and abetting Race discrimination, obstructing justice, and shielding Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW from ultimately being held accountable for Hormel Foods Corporation and UFCW (for instance but not limited to) violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting me an Illinois Hispanic American citizen to discrimination based on RACE. The fact and truth of the matter is Barack Obama can not deny that I one of his constituents, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, brought to his attention that there is substantial evidence about IDHR & EEOC interfering with my right for an investigation into my claim of discrimination based on RACE against Hormel Foods & UFCW from ever being conducted to date. Because I , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, have the audacity to believe I am equal under the Laws of the United States Of America I refuse to believe IDHR & EEOC, Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW (Despite Barack Obama’s inaction) are above the law and will not ultimately be held accountable for the above mentioned actions.

Chaos45i at 11:23PM on Jul 12th 2007

17. SUDDAM OBAMA SMELLS LIKE A RAT TO ME.OF COURSE IT WOULD NOT BE POLITICALLY CORRECT TO CALL HIM A MUSLIM WHO PROBABLY CLAPS SILENTLY FOR A/Q WHILE SMILING IN YOUR FACE SAYING WHAT A PEACEFUL RELIGION ISLAM IS.NOT TO MENTION HIS WHOPPING 2 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN POLITICS. YEAH,WHAT A CANDIDATE. HE IS JUST ANOTHER LOUD MOUTHED BULL CRAPPER TRYING TO POINT FINGERS TO KEEP THE FOCUS OFF OF HIMSELF.

ELISHA AKRIDGE at 1:51PM on Jul 13th 2007

18. Frankly speaking, Senator Obama is another "in your face" [VOTE for ME I'm AFRICAN-AMERICA] you PEOPLES owe my KENYAN FATHER ... OR ELSE! Get lost B'wana I ain't voting for no Havad educated BIGOT!

Merry Fae at 11:38AM on Jul 13th 2007

19. Being an independent mind helps me bring more clarity to many things.

I was a republican for a while but Then when Bush took office I became a democrat and took just about the total opposite position on everything because it was the cool thing to do. Let's face it, this is a bad administration.

But then I realized so was the Clinton administration.

While everyone on these blogs and chatrooms and new stations (Liberal and conservative) are taking sides, I am now trying to find some common ground. I don't see things improving until people start talking to each other like Americans.

I witnessed so many arguments between the left and right and I sit here like, hey they are both right or wrong, whatever the argument is.

All this is people selling themselves to the public. It is a product. You try to get a date, you are selling yourself. Athletes sell themselves in tryouts, Sailors sell themselves to qualify for the Navy Seals, Car salesman sell, advertisers sell, and so on. You may not get what you are advertised but it is what selling is all about. Pursuasion. Most people shop due to the Label, just what we are doing now with voting. And it takes one to ruin the name. As what Jimmy Carter did with the Democrat Label is what GW Bush is now doing with the Republican Label. As long as we shop by brand and not do research and seek what is behind each Model under those brand then the same two evils will continue to rule. And it is advertised to us through the Media of all forms.

Buyer beware in 2008.

David McCool at 2:11PM on Jul 13th 2007

20. What about Barak Obama

(1) Between 1983 and 1985 Barak Obama spent a year working for Business International Corporation. You do not have to believe me it is in his biography on his web site and in his bio in Wikipedia.
Business International Corp. is a law firm that specializes in helping companies moving their manufacturing and product development overseas. Check out Business International Corp’s web site or their listing in Wikipedia. Someone whose only job in the private sector was shipping jobs overseas is not someone that should be in charge of the USA economy.

(2) The Presidency of the United States is an executive position. Barak Obama has never held an executive position of any type. No Governor, no Mayor, no CEO, not even the manager of a department store, or caption of a Swift boat. He did teach in a law school for 4 years.

(3) Barak Obama has only two years of experience in the federal government. Would anyone allow someone with only two years of experience in the aviation industry run an airline, or two years in retail run a department store, or two years of experience in a sport run a national franchise?

(4) The Presidency is an executive position that requires specific plans for solving problems. Check out Barak Obama’s web site where he states his positions in the broadest and vaguest possible terms; it contains no specific plans for anything.

(5) The best job Barak Obama has ever had is US Senate for two years for $157,000 per year. Yet he just purchased a house for $1,600,000. If he is not on the take his wife must have a valorously well paying job.

(6) Until a few days ago Barak Obama’s web site said he was educated in a Moslem school for at least 2 years while he lived in Indonesia from age 6 to age 12. His posting in Wikipedia still says that. Yet his supporters are claiming it is a smear even though it is the truth.

(7) Besides writing two auto-biographies and no legislation purposed, he has done not a thing.

(8) White canidate would be distroyed in one day if the church they went to had a doctrine aimed at ones race like Obama's church. Check out his churches web site.(i http://www.tucc.org/about.htm)

(9) In his 2006 Income Tax filing Obama donated $ 15,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and $ 5,000 to Muntu Dance Theater. How long would a White presidential candidate last if it was found that he donated $ 20,000 to Whites only organizations.

saltzman21 at 3:22PM on Jul 15th 2007

21. Just for interest sake do any of you bloggers have access to Link TV? There are news programs on this station such as Democracy One that present much broader views than the mainstream newscasts. Documentaries and news from ALL OVER THE WORLD that would make your eyes pop out. Its a fantastic station to get a more balanced look at the world in general. There is more to this world than what we see on American TV. Every word we read and hear has a slant to it, but unless we read and hear widely our views come to naught.

kiwi at 11:24AM on Jul 15th 2007

22. Obama is a Muslim, AND? In your mind do you equate all Muslim's with fanaticism and terrorism? educate yourself in regards to world religions and what Islamic States, Al Queda and other Fundamentalists claim is from the Qur'an, it's not. It is their deranged man-made version.
Chaos, you are going to have a stroke! My Cuban daughter, 30 years old, has been harrassed throughout her life. She earned a Masters in Religion, works hard and uses actions instead of words. This country has become so litigious it's an embarassment! Work and get an education, stop pissing and moaning.
The war in Iraq must end now! Iran is involved, Al Queda, it is worse than before we invaded Iraq. Our troops are being murdered hourly.
Oil, oil, oil................... Ring any bells? Viet Nam, before the leftie, liberal name calling begins, I am a Viet Nam era veteran, USAF, disabled and honorably discharged. I love our men and women over there, time to bring them home.
The candidate that can give me a date is who will get my vote.

rhodalee at 12:10PM on Jul 15th 2007

23. I like Obama, Edwards, Ron Paul or Bloomberg. They will all get us out of Iraq fast. What a blunder that was. Same as Vietnam where we wasted 58,000 Americans for nothing. Bush is Al Queda's best recruting agent. A well meaning but stupid man, Bush will stay the course to preserve his legacy. To pull out now would be to admit failure. We need fresh faces in the White House with some vision. Or we will decline like the Roman Empire.

Jay Freeman at 5:04PM on Jul 15th 2007

24. We keep hearing from establishment Dem. candidates that Sen. Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience to be President.
Yet Sen. Obama had it right from the get-go--that this war is dumb and stupid.
On the other hand we have Hillary C. and John Edwards who claim to have more knowlege and experience in this important area, yet say that they were duped by by the Bush administration and therefore voted for a war that they would not have otherwise voted for (that is if they knew better). Well, which is it? Either they do not have the experience or intelligence required for the job, OR, (and I think that this is the case) CLINTON AND EDWARDS LACK THE INTEGRITY TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT WHEN THEY PERCEIVE THAT IT MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR POLITICAL FUTURES.
WE NEED A PRESIDENT THAT IS A REAL LEADER LIKE OBAMA, NOT FOLLOWERS LIKE CLINTON AND EDWARDS!

Phil Gordon at 5:22PM on Jul 15th 2007

25. ok obama. and your solution is ........?

rom at 9:01PM on Jul 15th 2007

26. WHY ARE OBAMA ,CLINTON AND EDWARDS WHINEING ABOUT POVERTY WHEN THEY ARE ALL COLLECTING MILLIONS FROM VOTERS? WHERE IS ALL THIS POVERTY?

HEADLADY8 at 11:44PM on Jul 15th 2007

27. Hey, lay off the Rats. Rats are clean and very intelligent. And they make great pets. If most of those candidates had the personality of a Rat, they would actually be better people. And if Hillary had the personality of a Rat, one might actually consider her to be human.

wheezer097 at 10:37PM on Jul 16th 2007

28. You have to be extremely uneducated to believe that the USA can pull out of Iraq and be safe from larger terror attacks in the future.

KNM at 8:04PM on Jul 16th 2007

29. To rhodalee: You are talking to a college Graduate. Barack Obama and racists against Hispanics alike do not refrain from Discriminating against anyone hispanic becuase of their education, Tell your Cuban daughter the truth about Barack Obama and let her decide to vote for or against the racist. I have been calling Barack Obama a racist and invite him to sue if I’m acting in bad faith. I say there is a reason a former civil rights attorney does not run for president with civil rights as a main issue and if you are a Hispanic American from the state of Illinois this concerns you. It can be verified having already been placed on repeated formal notice Barack Obama has taken no action to stop or even call for any investigation into IDHR & EEOC’s discriminatory practices that mistreat, harm , and prevent Illinois Hispanic American complainants from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to by IDHR & EEOC. There can be no dispute that since 2004 I was and still now am not being allowed to assert & memorialize a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination with IDHR & EEOC focusing instead on manipulating the charging process by IDHR & EEOC repeatedly pressuring me to sign (upon threat of dismissing my charges) only IDHR & EEOC prepared “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination in which IDHR & EEOC never memorialized my clear unambiguous claim of discrimination based on RACE that I have always maintained against Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW since 2004. Even to date IDHR & EEOC have not provided me any state law or state rule and/or federal law or federal rule that excludes and/or prohibits any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from asserting and memorializing a claim of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges of discrimination at the agency IDHR and/or at the agency EEOC. Despite bringing this to Barack Obama’s attention Barack Obama and his office having full knowledge and understanding has continued to ignore the fact that I, one of his Illinois Hispanic American constituents, is unlawfully being treated unequally by IDHR & EEOC. IDHR & EEOC (For instance but not limited to) has attempted to dissuade me, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, from filing charges, misrepresenting facts in the public record, and IDHR & EEOC is excluding & denying me , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, a fair & full opportunity to memorialize my assertion of discrimination based on RACE on formal official “IDHR & EEOC” charges during the charge process without IDHR & EEOC ever providing in a clear straightforward honest manner an actual written legal justification that shows under what actual discriminatory Illinois law and/or federal law allows IDHR & EEOC to exclude any Illinois Hispanic American citizen from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert the exact same claim of discrimination based on RACE that other nonHispanics are allowed to & enjoy as matter of record at IDHR & EEOC. As a result of Barack Obama’s failure to insure that his Illinois Hispanic American constituents are not being prevented from fairly & fully exercising their legal right to assert discrimination based on RACE at the agencies IDHR & EEOC and Barack Obama’s failure to even call for an investigation to immediately redress this serious matter Barack Obama is effectively aiding and abetting Race discrimination, obstructing justice, and shielding Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW from ultimately being held accountable for Hormel Foods Corporation and UFCW (for instance but not limited to) violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting me an Illinois Hispanic American citizen to discrimination based on RACE. The fact and truth of the matter is Barack Obama can not deny that I one of his constituents, an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, brought to his attention that there is substantial evidence about IDHR & EEOC interfering with my right for an investigation into my claim of discrimination based on RACE against Hormel Foods & UFCW from ever being conducted to date. Because I , an Illinois Hispanic American citizen, have the audacity to believe I am equal under the Laws of the United States Of America I refuse to believe IDHR & EEOC, Hormel Foods Corporation & UFCW (Despite Barack Obama’s inaction) are above the law and will not ultimately be held accountable for the above mentioned actions.

Chaos45i at 9:06PM on Jul 16th 2007

30. Why we went to war. When it was planned. Who we are fighting and why. How past presidents have been in collusion. Why Barack Obama is the only one to resolve it. Baracks understanding of world politics.

Brief:

1st you get who is attacking us.

2nd you get proof to who is attacking us.

3rd you get the reason why we have them attacking us.

4th you will see who started this whole chain that lead them to want to attack us.

5th you get to know that only a man like Barack Obama can be the one to stop them from attacking us.


6th you get Baracks understand of the world and the past 100 years.

LONG POST
Brief:
This war was planned many many years ago. Why do you think the saudi's are so many of the insurgents! Read this and understand the bilderberg world domination factor.


1st:
Here you can see how most are saudis attacking us in iraq:

2nd:
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence = http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq

"50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers"
metafilter.com Found 11 hours ago
The "same people who attacked us on 9/11"? It may be the very latest talking point from the Administration , but it's actually true--altho it's not Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Saudis. Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia .

http://tailrank.com/2280283/Saudis-role-in-Iraq-insurgency-outlined



3rd:
make sure you read the whole article from someone living there and who knows the truth and the feelings of the people of saudi arabia




Full spectrum dominance.(America's Oil Wars)( Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order)(Book Review)
From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) | Date: 6/22/2005 | Author: Bevan, Brock L.

Stephen C. Pelletiere. America's Oil Wars.

William Engdahl. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, [1992] 2004). 312 pp.

IRAQ, ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY (March 2005) of the United States led invasion and subsequent occupation, endures perpetual violence and a lack of normalization of life. Though the United States argued that Iraq had possessed so-called "weapons of mass-destruction" and had colluded with "terrorists" in the run-up to the invasion (that was neither declared a war by the United States Congress nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council), both allegations have proven to be false. (1) Pretenses for the invasion have shifted in the wake of the original casus belli deteriorating: the real reason for the invasion -ex posto facto- was to bring enlightenment in the form of "democracy" to the Iraqi people (and the Arab world) through preemptive war. (2)

Stephen C. Pelletiere, former senior political analyst at the CIA on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and professor of National Security Affairs at the United States Army War College from 1998 to 2000, argues that the ultimate occupation of Iraq from 2003 up to the present was a result of Saddam Hussein's attempt in the late 1980s and early 1990s to solidify the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). For Pelletiere "... the individual who was able to marshal the resources of so great (and powerful) an institution, and keep its members in line, would have been someone with whom to reckon." (3)

The peculiar instability that was prevalent in the Persian Gulf region prior to 1988-1989 allowed the United States to execute its version of a global racket. It involved allowing instability to flourish in order to create a reason for the autocrats in the Persian Gulf to exchange their "petro-dollars" for United States-made armaments. That these armaments were often of no use to the states buying them made no difference. Pelletiere contends that the "historic juncture" that occurred in the late 1980s "imperiled America's position in the Gulf." The concurrence of events that was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Iraqi defeat of Iran in their near decade-long war, and the consolidation of OPEC with high-absorber states in control of policy posed a challenge to the hegemony of the United States in the region and (as a result of the geopolitical significance of petroleum) in the world.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, challenged the hegemony that the United States exercised in the region by invading Kuwait in 1990. The problem for the United States was manifold, starting with the threat that a strong Iraq would pose to the Washington's allies in the region; continuing onto the elevated position of power Baghdad would sustain with Kuwait integrated into the state; and ending with the additional prestige Iraq would have over petroleum resources on a global level. Iraq, once cornered by the shenanigans of the George H. W. Bush administration, attempted to accommodate Washington's dictates while saving face, but to no avail. (4) Iraq's mistake turned out to be the perfect opportunity to enact a modified version of plans developed under former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in the 1970s to seize oilfields in the Persian Gulf from weak sheikdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. (5)

As a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States justified a military ground presence in Saudi Arabia. According to the story pushed by Washington, iraq posed a threat to the integrity of the Saudi Arabian kingdom, or at least the continued dynastic power of the al-Saud family. Thus, the al-Saud family gained "protection" from the United States but paid for it in terms of the cost of the war against Iraq in 1990-1991 as well as in terms of lost legitimacy. As Pelletiere says "... the decision to stay on [after the conclusion of the conflict in 1991] infuriated some elements of Saudi society, and instances of sabotage against the Americans began to proliferate." (6)

Whereas Pelletiere roots his analysis on the specificity of Iraq and its particular history in terms of leadership under Saddam Hussein, William Engdahl emphasizes the global dimension to the conflict. Engdahl is trained as an economist and writes for various financial publications on issues of energy, politics, and economics. In his A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New Worm Order, the reader is exposed to the long history of petroleum and how the change from coal as the major fuel altered the world. (7) Engdahl states "War in Iraq was about the very basis of America's 'national security,' of future American power. America's role as the sole hegemon was the unspoken reason for the war ..." (8) In making that statement Engdahl highlights the international monetary system that has been in place since the end of Second World War.

Unlike other countries that are constricted by issues such as balance of payments and debt, the United States developed a system whereby it issues a fiat currency that the rest of the world must use. At the end of the Second World War, America's unique position made sense in that it held the majority of global gold reserves and had an economy not shattered by war like in the United Kingdom, France, or Germany. Moreover, the United States dollar, at the time, was still exchangeable for gold. All this would change on 15 August 1971 when the United States "... announced formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world fully onto a dollar standard with no gold backing, thereby ripping apart the central provision of the 1944 Bretton Woods system." (9)

Engdahl notes that "The American Century, stripped of the rhetoric of freedom, peace, and democracy, was based on clear US hegemony among nations." (10) He continues:


It rested on two pillars. The one pillar was the
uncontested role of US military power, a dominance which
no combination of powers had been able to challenge since the
end of the Second World War in 1945. The Soviet Union
ultimately collapsed amid ruin in the effort to challenge that
hegemony ... The second pillar of American power was the
uncontested role of the dollar as world reserve currency. (11)

After gold no longer backed the dollar as a result of Nixon's action in 1971, another marker was to take its place: black gold. Thereafter, the denomination of petroleum sales in the international market place was to be exclusively in the dollar. The fact that the United States had a never-ending supply of greenbacks whereas every other country had to obtain dollars in order to purchase the petroleum required for economic growth put Washington in an extremely powerful position. (12) Engdahl refers to this series of events as the replacement of the gold standard with the "petrodollar standard."

Both Pelletiere and Engdahl see different cliques operating behind the scenes of nominal political channels in order to ensure their particular goals. Engdahl cites New York and London financial circles as well as the Seven Sisters (the major international petroleum companies) as designing American policy. Pelletiere often mentions the "complex," meaning the military-industrial complex that former President Dwight Eisenhower so famously warned about while allowing it to grow. The difference in the two lies in the breadth of analysis. Engdahl paints a larger, more in-depth, picture of United States action globally.

Pelletiere uses smaller brush-strokes and localizes the conflict to the Persian Gulf. They both agree on the nature of the United States occupation of Iraq as being imperialist. Again, the notion of American occupation of the Persian Gulf in order to exercise direct control over petroleum resources and indirect influence over the region was aired in 1970s. Engdahl notes that "In 1975, [James] Akins related, plans to find a pretext to send U.S. troops to occupy vital Mideastern oilfields had been encouraged by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger." (13)

The George W. Bush administration exploited the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in 2001 in order to further United States interests that predated the end of the Cold War. As Engdahl states, "[t]error was to replace communism as the new global image of 'the enemy.' (14) The new terrorists could be anywhere and everywhere. Above all, as the was defined in Washington, they were mostly to be found in the Islamic regions which also happened to control most of the world's oil reserves." (15) Pelletiere focuses on the fact that the United States needed to relocate from its Saudi bases and:


Rather than seeking to resolve this situation peacefully, the
[George W.] Bush administration (egged on by the neo-cons)
tried to force the issue by exploiting the horrific attacks on
[the] Twin Towers and the Pentagon. (16)

Pelletiere continues by stating that any United States base(s) in Iraq that persist will be under "continual seige." But, he thinks that this state of continual siege will be a benefit to the military-industrial complex as it will allow for justification for "continued subsidization at higher and higher levels" and "will practically ensure underfunding of social programs in the United States."

Engdahl suggests a greater plot. Stating that the era of "cheap oil" was coming to an end, Engdahl argues that:


... the looming depletion of a major share of world oil and gas,
due to take effect around the end of the first decade of the
century, sometime around 2010 or 2015, perhaps even sooner,
would explain the drive to unilateral military action in Iraq by
the Bush administration, despite the enormous risks. (17)

By controlling Iraq, the United States would have a firm grip on the heart of the remaining "cheap oil" sources. Iraq--having been kept in a state of siege for the last 25 years--was ripe for development into the next Saudi Arabia. In a sense, Washington's support for the Iraq-Iran war, its active participation in the First Gulf War, and its active participation in the siege of Iraq from 1991 to 2003 were all indicative of the will to keep Iraq as primarily an exporter of petroleum and not a user of it. (18) With Iraq as a base of future operations, America projected its military might and showed its ability to control the financial resources of the world by using its fiat currency to sustain astronomical debts incurred from its massive spending on armaments. Engdahl states the United States "now commanded a near monopoly of future energy resources. The Pentagon had a term for it [control of the world reserve currency, military hegemony, and direct control of resources]--'full spectrum dominance.' It meant that the United States should control military, economic and political developments, everywhere."(19)

Pelletiere and Engdahl, challengers of the White House espoused reasons for war in Iraq, offer their readers insights into the operation of American imperial designs. Pelletiere concentrates his analysis on Iraq and its history. Engdahl provides a global approach to the vagaries of United States intervention in the Persian Gulf. They both agree that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was engineered and without any legitimate casus belli. Engdahl's detailed exposition on how the control of Iraqi oil--and derivative influence over the Persian Gulf region--produces United States power over economic competitors that are energy-dependent (e.g., China, Japan, Germany, and France) and reinforces the role of the dollar present a solid explanation of Washington's action. (20)

ENDNOTES

(1.) David Kay, transcript of Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 29 January 2004, . Kay states that his team launched to find Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction" by the Bush administration found "program activities" related to missile development and atomic weaponization yet "the large stockpile of actual weapons, chemical and biological weapons simply have not yet been found." Regarding a "terrorist" connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, no link has ever been proven. Pelletiere suggests that the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 were a result of the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia. He notes that "[t]o this day, Americans do not know what went on with those attacks [on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon], and there is every reason to believe that this is the case with their leaders as well." P. 135.

(2.) The term "preemptive" has seen much usage in order to describe the United States invasion of Iraq. However, Iraq posed little threat to its neighbors let alone the United States as it had neither the weapons to inflict damage on the United States nor the capacity to deliver the weapons. Thus, preemptive should be read as unilateral and without provocation from Baghdad.

(3.) Stephen C. Pelletiere, America's Oil Wars'. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), p. ix. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was created during a conference in Baghdad that took place from 10-14 September 1960. The original members of the cartel included Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

(4.) Ibid., p. 105. "Once the United States had determined to oppose the invasion [of Kuwait], it seems to have resolved on making war, with the result that all of the Iraqis' maneuvers to initiate negotiations went unheeded."

(5.) Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields in '73: British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast," The Washington Post, 1 January 2004, page A01.

(6.) Pelletiere, p. 150. The unrest caused by the United States basing troops in Saudi Arabia was a two-way street. It disturbed the sensibilities of Saudis keen on protecting Mecca and Medina from infidels and this anger was channeled against the monarchy as well as against Americans.

(7.) William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2004).

(8.) Ibid., p. ix.

(9.) Ibid., p. 128. The United States was forced to decouple the dollar from the gold standard due to the low value set on the price of gold, $35 per fine ounce. For more on the Bretton Woods system, see Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism : The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. Worm Dominance (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003).

(10.) Ibid., p. x.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid., p. 154. Engdahl calls OPEC's decision in 1975 to accept only dollars for petroleum "curious" since the agreement remained in force "despite enormous losses to OPEC as the dollar gyrated up and down through the next decade and more."

(13.) Ibid., p. 218-219. James Akins was a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

(14). Ironically, the United States funded jihadi groups in the successful effort to keep the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

(15.) Ibid., p. 252.

(16.) Pelletiere, p. 150.

(17.) Engdahl, p. 262.

(18.) Ibid., pp. 268-269. Engdahl argues that the oil shock in 1973 was rigged at Saltsjobaden, Sweden during at meeting of the Bilderberg group. The jump in oil prices had the result of creating a huge pool of so-called 'petrodollars' that could not be invested in the countries that accrued them. Thus, they were invested in Europe and the United States instead of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Besides strengthening the dollar in the wake of the decoupling from the gold standard, the price shock had the effect of placing developing countries in a perpetual debt cycle since their raw materials did not rise in price as the cost of dollar-denominated petroleum did. See pp. 130-141.

(19.) Ibid., p. 269.

(20.) At the end of 2000, Iraq began to price its petroleum in Euros. See Charles Recknagel, "Iraq: Baghdad Moves to the Euro," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1 November 2000, < Link. Although not devastating to Washington at the time, was a highly symbolic move on Iraq's part. Switching to dominated petroleum sales in Euros was an attack on the United States dollar as world reserve currency and as the United States as hegemon.

Brock L. Bevan holds a master's degree in Middle Eastern studies from the American University of Beirut. Formerly, he was grants administrator at the Washington, DC-based Jerusalem Fund.


4th:
You can see how the group BILDERBERG has run all the american elections ever since.

MY BLOG: = "Its long but true"

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.

BILDERBERG CANIDATES

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Crpz

5th:
I know It is a little long but it gives you the full insight to why we went to war and how Barack has this knowledge and will use it to broker that peace with a group of people who have been used and abused by many around the world. Only Barack Obama has the ability to broker that peace. They would never trust the good old white boy network that has run roughshod over them for the last hundred years.

6th
Baracks understanding of the big picture

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php

Danielle Clarke at 1:47PM on Jul 18th 2007