Gwynne Dyer On Canada U.S. Relations

I think it's inconceivable that the Iraq war was not about oil. As the State dept wrote in 1945, Middle East oil is "a stupendous source of strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in world history." He's right about the US needing to make an example of a country though. The national security strategy said that the US will attack & take over any country suspected of harbouring terrorists, & they needed to actually implement that plan to show that they mean business. Dyer is completely wrong about the oil though. Greg Palast has done some good work on the oil thing also. <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com">www.gregpalast.com</a><p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

Dyer is an excellent writer but has consistantly refused to admit the war is about oil.

When they protected ONLY the oil ministries in the initial invasion did they do that because of chance perhaps?

When the Cheney Task Force was pressed by freedom of information requests to cough up information out came maps of Iraq divided into sections according to oil.

Iraq under Saddam was about to start selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. We all know what that would have done to the greenback.

Sure it is not ONLY about oil, but oil is a huge part. America is 3% of the worlds population but use over 25% of the worlds energy. Their military absolutely depends on oil.

As for our relations - there is zero need to say 'yes' to anything that we don't want to. For last I looked we are a sovereign nation of Canadian people not Americans. As for the Harper pro-America party - certainly they will try to bend over for Bush. He has consistantly gotten onto bent knee for everything Bush wants. That is why if we see another election and it is a Conservative minority, it too will fall within a few months. Canadians are not anti-american, they are anti-bad choice. For as long as the majority of Canadians want to remain good members of the international community as we always have, the Harper conservatives better take heed.

Actually, I think where Dwyer is going wrong about the oil is that he seems to have this idea that everyone else who is saying it is about oil is under the impression that the US wants to gain material possession of the oil, ie. drill the oil out of the ground and bring it to the US to hoard for the US. At least this is what he implies in his book "Future Tense", the rest of which is a very well thought out analysis about the Pax Americana and the use of American military might to assert its position of dominance in the world in the face of declining influence (the slide he refers to in the video here). However, i was very disappointed when he missed the obvious that the above US motives cannot rely only on military might but has to rely on controlling and influencing economies and in the modern world this means controlling and influencing oil production among other key resources. I believe that Dwyer's strong point is generally military analysis; maybe that's why he missed this one.

FWIW here's Bill Blum's (former employee of the State Dept & now activist) reasons for the Iraq invasion, written Feb 17 2003: <P> <B>Expansion of the American Empire</B>: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East. <P> <B>Idealism</B>: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now." <P> <B>Oil</B>: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down. <P> <B>Globalization</B>: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists. <P> <B>Arms industry</B>: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire <P> <B>Israel</B>: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated. <P> http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm<p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

Gwynne UNDERSTATES the importance of oil intensionally. He is commenting on the global and long term motivations and oil is a short term one.

Yes, it makes the wheels go round but it is not the sole motivator, nor is it the most important. Hegemony is. That requires coalitions of the willing to be forged against the axis of evils all the while showcasing the fact that it is America that is the only true Saviour for peace, democracy and a free market. As long as America holds the uncontested role of the savior of these things in the minds of the majority of Americans and from those who would buy into their ideals or at least buy treasury bonds to support the debt then all is well.

If the facade is broken and the curtain is pulled back then the Americans are in big trouble and they know it. Like the Germans being stopped in the steppes of Russia in 1941. The physiological advantage the Weirmarcht had over it's enemies as 'undefeatable' evaporated and the resistance stiffened even though the Germans were still a formidable fighting force and were able to fight on 3 fronts for 4 more years. The same is true for the US if they lose control of the reserve currency and the favorable terms it has reaped up till now.

That is the real fear, if the US suddenly panics and needs to make examples of smaller countries like Iran or North Korea things could escalate rather quickly like a panicked elephant.

Gwynne makes an excellent point in that the US needs to be dissuaded from it's current path and also be given a 'soft landing'. Such forgiveness may be in very short supply given the US has a habit of pissing in everyone cornflakes but it is either that or anarchy, not a great choice but it is the one we are faced with.

^^ me BTW

<a href="http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17682.shtml#top">http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17682.shtml#top</a>

I read the book some time ago,and I agree that oil is part of the invasion.It may not be the only reason,but it sure is the main one.

Dyer spoke at one of the highschools in my town half a year ago and I had the fortune of listening to him. He's an incredible speaker; if you ever get the chance to hear him speak, by all means do. <BR><BR> I agree that he intentionally understates the importance of oil. He recognizes that a large part of the war is about it, however, he can see the further reaching geo-political reprecussions of the US wars in the middle east, and so that's largely what he deals with. <BR><BR> Anyone read any of his books? I've been thinking of checking some of them out...<p>---<br>Ændrew Rininsland<br />

As a U.S. citizen, I was amused by Dyer's -- accurate -- observation about canadian governments trying mightily not to offend governments in Washington. It would be helpful to those of us in the opposition here if Canadian institutions, and most particularly governments, would speak out sharply and clearly on matters of supreme importance. Canada is one of the few countries generally admired by Americans; how about more friendly advice and fewer CYA bromides?

I have read his book "Future Tense" and I would recommend it. Perhaps I say that because it confirms my thoughts on the activities that led up to the invasion of Iraq. During Jan, Feb and Mar 2003, I was living in Spain and got my news from the BBC world service. I remember seeing Jack Straw, Colin Powell, Negroponte, Donald Rumsfeld and others at the UN denouncing Iraq for their attempts to conform with UN demands with respect to the weapons inspections. It seemed to me that Iraq was complying very well with the demands, it also seemed obvious that nothing the Iraqis did would be good enough, and the coalition was determined to go to war. In fact I was convinced that the decision to go to war had been made long before March 2003. Does anybody else feel that Hans Blix and his team were sent on a wild goose chase ?. Were they not the subject of a cynical charade ?.

To "grmgrmgrm" I was at a Democratic site the other night and they were asking people to write to their Senator and urge that impeachment be discussed.

Frank