US policy is not monolithic in the sense that East, West, North and South or Middle are not treated the same. How the US deals with South America or Africa is very different than how it’s policies of world dominance works in the Middle East or various places in the Far East.

So, Venezuela and Iraq policies are not the same, even if both have oil.

Also, let’s not get stuck on oil, there are other resources of central interest to corporate globalists which have and will have increased value worth sending American soldiers to die for and to kill (in their destructive 5,000 year continuation of conquest).

If Israel is central to this, it is to the extent that it figures into the ME strategy/policy. This does not discount immense pressure influence when such policies are confluent. But again, I don’t see a strong case for the client state controlling the situation without the green light from the US government. A case for neoconservative control is in play, but their role is granted by the administration in power. Bush I kept them (neocons) at bay, but invaded Iraq to push them out of Kuait because of…you guessed it - oil.) But again, it is not oil per se it is dominance where interests are identified. It is brute hegemonic force at work.

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. You say here that you challenge the “war for oil mantra”. And then you say I’m morphing that into imperialism. Well imperialism is about resource control (oil). A little history would do you good.

I am very supportive of what I see in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America. And if you read what is going on there you would know that it is not about oil as a sustainable cash “crop”. There is a whole sustainable people’s economics in progress.

You have twisted the whole idea of imperialism, Chavez’s comments, and mine to suit your one track answer to the whole problem which from all I can tell is - zionism. I am not an apologist for zionism (and I resent you respresenting what I’ve said in this way).

But ill-defined problems, make for dangerous solutions. And I think that’s the track you’re on. You and your buddy gerald spezio seem to have a zionism mantra. Spezio started this off with what I thought was a great quote from Layla Anwar and acknowledged it. Ms Anwar is very clear about what she thinks is the problem: US of America.

You have both found one answer and so, anything short of that single point does not fit in your worldview frame.

Good day.
Max Shields

Exposing Russ Wellen was too easy. It was only a crumb, but who knows what the bastards are contriving next. The Zionists want it all.

Exposing Russ Wellen too easy. It was only a crumb, but who knows what the bastards are contriving next. The Zionists want it all.

Well, this is interesting. Of course I agree. I’ve never disagreed. The comments I’ve made to your posts have always been your constant contention that US world policy is first and foremost a zionist cabal.

Your remarks are disingenuous and false and part of your own pattern of distortion and clearly demonstrates how you work your rhetoric. You’ve been on DV for months attempting to label and ridicule anyone who challenges the “WAR FOR OIL” mantra that is now morphing into the line that “it is all about imperialism”. Any consideration of Zionism’s contribution is turned by you into a “zionist cabal”. Those are your ugly words and thought you’ve used as part of your smear campaign. My position has been very clear and very consistent throughout. It is you Max that has altered your position — from “WAR FOR OIL” to “imperialism”. As you yourself pointed out Max, racism plays a role in imperialism.

As for Hugo Chavez, the US has been in Venezuela and has made efforts to foment a coup. But it is bogged down in the ME and so South America has been able to create a new socioeconomic and political paradigm. While we refer to it as socialism it isn’t Marxism. It is more closer aligned to Henry George and sustainable economic models then Marxism which was just as destructive (with a slightly different bent) as capitalism.

Chavez knows that oil cannot be the basis of a sustainable economy. It is not a question of whether Venezuela has reached peak oil, it’s a question of when. Chavez is no fool and neither are the Venezuelan people who understand this in a deep way - unlike seemingly most Americans.

As I’ve consistently pointed out to challenge the”it’s only about oil” and the “it’s all about imperialism” rhetoric now being deployed by you and others to quash any discussion of the role of Zionism is that the U.S. IS NOT ENGAGED MILITARILY in Venezuela yet Venezuela is much more important strategically to U.S. oil needs. From the 1950’s throughout the 1970’s the the U.S. paid clients overthrow nation from Iran and Iraq without U.S. military interventions. The U.S. is now engage is a very costly engagement in Iraq and now is on the cusp of invading Iran.

But Max, I already discussed this very point with you or do you just have selective amnesia? Your tactic Max is to either IGNORE any point you cannot rebut and to twist and to distort and when that doesn’t work — smear.

Chavez challenges the PEEK OIL rhetoric which as spezio points out may be a rhetorical device to weaken OPEC of which Venezuela is a member along with the Arab states. Chavez knows that the current rate of consumption especially by the U.S. is unsustainable however he also knows that their is plenty of oil in reserves to meet demand for the next 200 years.

[U.S. imperialist] policy precedes the history of Israel and has much broader implications than the Middle East.

This is the key your to rhetorical alteration is to ignore Zionism. That rhetorical fallacy implies that white racism in the U.S. and that the challenge to racism, in the form of the Civil Rights movement, should not have occurred since the movement didn’t end U.S. imperialism. Your rhetoric implies that racism is not a factor in U.S. imperialism and its society. There should no analysis of how racism effect domestic and international policy since imperialism is only about the appropriation of resources and NEVER about destruction for racist and hegemonic purposes.

One thing for sure Max is that throughout my time here on DV I never had to distort your position for me to make my point.

Regards,
Deadbeat

Well, this is interesting. Of course I agree. I’ve never disagreed. The comments I’ve made to your posts have always been your constant contention that US world policy is first and foremost a zionist cabal.

Do I think there is confluence between Israel and US policy in the ME? Yes, very much. Does the neocon cabal reflect the zionist voice in America. Yes, indeed. I’ve tried to be clear on this.

But until this quote above, I have never read anything by you that would indicate that you could even imagine US policy as anything but zionist derived.

US history is replete with hegemony, imperialism, invasion, occupation which is all about geopolicitical and resource control of one form or another (oil is but one). But Israel, I contend is more the pit bull than the master. The dog can agree with the master, and give the impression that it is talking for (or even is) the master. But the reality, when you step back and look at the total historical and current context of policies is that it is clearly the US policy which rules. And that policy precedes the history of Israel and has much broader implications than the Middle East.

Has the US policy reached its zenith - YES! It is pathological. It has destroyed the lives of millions, while we sit back here disconnected from the terror our war machine thrusts on the world (and yes, Israel, in pit bull fashion, does the same in its corner of the world).

As for Hugo Chavez, the US has been in Venezuela and has made efforts to foment a coup. But it is bogged down in the ME and so South America has been able to create a new socioeconomic and political paradigm. While we refer to it as socialism it isn’t Marxism. It is more closer aligned to Henry George and sustainable economic models then Marxism which was just as destructive (with a slightly different bent) as capitalism.

Chavez knows that oil cannot be the basis of a sustainable economy. It is not a question of whether Venezuela has reached peak oil, it’s a question of when. Chavez is no fool and neither are the Venezuelan people who understand this in a deep way - unlike seemingly most Americans.

I’d suggest a closer and broader look at our history. It provides more than simple ephemeral partnership with a client state.

Best regards,
Max

EXCLUSIVE NETWORK INTERVIEW OF SENATOR JOE BIDEN

“I am a Zionist,” stated Senator Biden. “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

Max, if there is anyone who is “johnny-one-note” in this discussion it is those like yourself who believe the only reason for the incursion in Iraq was “WAR FOR OIL”. Any other complexities are not to be analyzed. What I have said is that oil is AMONG the one of the reasons but not the only reason for the U.S to have invaded militarily in Iraq. Among others who are shining a light on Zionism are James Petras, Jeffrey Blankfort, Lenni Brenner, Joel Kovel and the Christensons who are former CIA Mid East analysts who recently wrote an excellent article on this very same topic for Counterpunch.

The problem Max with your position is that you attempt to ridicule and quash anything discussion that bring U.S. Zionism to the forefront. Those on the left has who quash U.S. Zionism do not want to broach the issue for reasons that are either racist or fear of a backlash. However to ignore U.S. Zionism is to ignore issues of race and power and its effects on U.S. culture as well as political and economic policies.

Those like Ron Jacobs, seek to use strawman arguments to sweep the issue of U.S. Zionism under the rug such as “Tel Aviv pulling U.S. strings”. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant however the Christenson have provided evidence that it works both ways. Regardless what IS true is that Zionism has a profound effect on U.S. culture. Even Joe Biden openly admits that he is a Zionist and he is running for President of the United States!

The latest tactic now being used by the left to quash discussion on Zionism in the U.S. is the Chomsky approach that it’s all “imperialism”. However we know that if “oil” was the main reason for the “war” that Venezuela or Latin American or Caribbean would be the most likely and natural target for military occupation.

However the goal in Iraq was destruction and capitulation. There are those on the left still calling the “war” a “mistake” or a “failure”. However from the standpoint if Israeli hegemony it was a complete success. Clearly Israel is the major beneficiary of yet another weaken Arab state. It is profoundly anti-Marxist to ignore any and all aspects. So if you profess to being a leftist; if you profess to seek justice; you would not seek to quash any analysis; you would seek to test all theories.

Also Max I absolute detest and am disgusted with your distortions of my position. I NEVER once stated that It’s all about Zionism. Those ARE YOUR WORDS AND YOUR STRAWMAN and you’ve consistently engage in distortion to ridicule my position that Zionism definitely played a role and contributes deleteriously to U.S culture. You have chosen to argue that Zionism has no role to play whatsoever and offer not an iota of evidence to support your claims. What you are doing Max has the effect of advancing the very thing you claim to oppose — Zionism itself.

Max you better start to face reality and stop the denial otherwise reality will have a nasty way of biting you and the rest of us in the ASS.

Uh? Does Deadbeat post under two monikers? You’re obviously saying the same thing and adding nothing to the point I made (or is it that you’re missing the point I made?).

Why would you or anybody want to do that, Max?

You’re johnny one note confines your thinking to a single cause for war and hegemony.

I am no friend to the apartheid of Israel nor the zionist racism - here we agree. But then you proceed to take the heart felt burning words of an Iraqi woman and turn it into a anti-zionist diatribe.

So, American preditory, pathological capitalism which was launched before the existence, gets off the hook. It’s all about zionism.

Again, you are taking a serious problem and undermining it by overstating its place in the world.

Layla Anwar knows the enemy of Iraq - YOU AND ME! We live in the belly of the beast and it’s time we STOP looking else where. That does not let the zionist off the hook, but keeps them square on the one they own not the own without name tags in place. (and this looking to a fictious left to “do” something is the biggest red herring since Bush identified his axis of evil.)

You profess to love and seek the truth; “And you dare wonder why I detest you so much…”

You suffer from anti-semitism… oh, how you suffer…

You call yourself a writer…write about what?

You love your children, your religion, your ethics, your spirituality, your Democratic political process…

Please tell me more about freedom and your love… your spirituality…

It remains open to question whether Greenspan in addition intended to divert attention from the clear evidence that Israel and its U.S. supporters, both among Jewish American organizations and among neocon policymakers inside the administration, pushed hard for the war, among other reasons to guarantee Israel’s security in the Middle East and its regional domination. But whatever his intent, this has been the effect of his concentration on oil. It reinforces the assumptions of those, primarily on the left, who have always contended that the war was “all about oil,” and only about oil. The left’s refusal to acknowledge that a desire to secure Israel in the region had anything to do with the Bush neocons’ war planning is difficult to fathom, since many on the left are notable critics of Israeli policy. But, again, whatever their intent in quashing discussion of the Israeli link, the effect has been to contribute to silencing domestic debate on a critical U.S. policy issue.

Injustice is what is it to me.

DEADBEAT! Get use to it!