NP, Kate.
I always have plenty of interesting tidbits stashed away.
Russian Intelligence leaks date for massive US attack on Iran? 6th April.
Do you see that Russia by "leaking" this news was trying to control the dialogue? Do you think they may manipulate the situation for their own goals?

Sorry all I had was neocon news outlets to choose from. LOL

Amy Myers Jaffee, Energy Security: Implications for U.S./China/Middle East Relations

This message has been edited. Last edited by: --Kate,

Interesting Kate, but did not answer my questions?
Why do I want to read more navel gazing?

But I did find this piece:
THE “WOMAN’S ISSUE” IN CONTEXT:
DEFRAMING THE DISCOURSE ON
MIDDLE EASTERN WOMEN
Maybe you can read it, pretty short, and tell me what you think.

quote:

United States international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets

That was on the first page. Doesn't build up too much confidence in me. Cracking the code should help. Nothing is "Free".

Kate also note page 7 when it referred to "hedge".

self quote: "Cuba, Venezuela and even Iran are not imperialist powers. The U.S. is imperialist."

Ronald posted: "I guess we will have to disagree on those points. I think the threads clearly show their desires for imperialism, it is only the degree of power and restrictions that prevent further expansionary actions."

When has Cuba (even before Castro) either occupied or had forces in a country against the majority will of that country? Never. Same with Venezuela.

The thing about actual, sincere leftists such as Castro and Chavez is that they seek to influence events in a way that is inherently anti-imperialistic.

A true leftist is by definition anti-imperialistic, as imperialism connotes either private sector capitalist examples, enabled by government (the U.S., the U.K.) or state-capitalist, deformed-socialist examples (the U.S.S.R. since Stalin).

link

This message has been edited. Last edited by: --Kate,

quote:

Brent: When has Cuba (even before Castro) either occupied or had forces in a country against the majority will of that country? Never. Same with Venezuela.

And how can that be stated? I mean did Castro take a poll for all the residents of Bolivia before he sent Che in? I don't believe the Nicaraguans in the end wanted the Sandinistas also.

quote:

The thing about actual, sincere leftists such as Castro and Chavez is that they seek to influence events in a way that is inherently anti-imperialistic.

Thanks for reminding me of Che. This is more like dogma than actual facts that can be based on.

quote:

A true leftist is by definition anti-imperialistic, as imperialism connotes either private sector capitalist examples, enabled by government (the U.S., the U.K.) or state-capitalist, deformed-socialist examples (the U.S.S.R. since Stalin).

First all countries are capitalist in nature. Name me a country that does not have capital, and I will be sure and write my thesis on this. All political/economic systems have to deal with labor/land/capital/and human capital to create an economy. If you really see what Hugo and Fidel talk about, it boils down to trade and cooperation. I know, strange that anti-globalist anti-neoliberalists actually talk most about trade.

I think your thesis is about a good as mine:

Only Communist/Fascist/Socialist states can commit Genocide/Democide. Liberal Democracies by their very nature can not cause these atrocities or any death from hunger.

Brent have you seen the movie Soy Cuba ?
After watching it I am sure you will also be saying "Soy Cuba".

Kate nice link. This brings into context about during 1953 the US was afraid of a pro-Soviet regime taking over.

I wonder if anyone has studied this regime vs say Poland, Hungary or any of the other Warsaw Nations.

Ronald posted: "And how can that be stated? I mean did Castro take a poll for all the residents of Bolivia before he sent Che in? I don't believe the Nicaraguans in the end wanted the Sandinistas also."

Ronald, you are just about too ignorant to deal with.

Any one with even a cursory knowledge of Nicaraguan history knows the Sandinistas won an internationally-observed, multi-party landslide in 1984. And after the '90 elections the Sandinistas handed over power. It was the U.S. that was imperialistic in creating a civil war in a country that was practicing democracy, even by your definition of democracy. So please retract your ignorant statement as regards the Sandinistas.

And, BTW, who's the current president of Nicaragua?

As for Bolivia, Che led a band of about 20 men in attempt to foment revolution against a brutal dictatorship. Not exactly an occupation carried out by the Cuban military against an unwilling populace.

Sheez.

Ronald also posted: "Only Communist/Fascist/Socialist states can commit Genocide/Democide. Liberal Democracies by their very nature can not cause these atrocities or any death from hunger."

The U.S. has trampled and extinguished political democracy in many countries as the results did not fit the U.S. liking.

Current example is the Hamas situation, where the elected government is dismissed and the bastion of the elected government is being starved.

qote again: "Kate nice link. This brings into context about during 1953 the US was afraid of a pro-Soviet regime taking over."

Oh, so the big, bad U.S. was AFRAID, and therefore somehow justified in quashing Iranian democracy?

Ronald Rutherford: I'm just about done with you. Only so much willful ignorance a fair-minded person of a modicum of learning can take.

Please discuss the issues, not each other.

You know Brent, I don't think I will tire of talking to you...

quote:

Ronald, you are just about too ignorant to deal with.
...
I'm just about done with you. Only so much willful ignorance a fair-minded person of a modicum of learning can take.

I just wonder why all the words in between if you really feel that way. But anyway, let me address your posts. Thanks...

quote:

Any one with even a cursory knowledge of Nicaraguan history knows the Sandinistas won an internationally-observed, multi-party landslide in 1984. And after the '90 elections the Sandinistas handed over power. It was the U.S. that was imperialistic in creating a civil war in a country that was practicing democracy, even by your definition of democracy. So please retract your ignorant statement as regards the Sandinistas.

And, BTW, who's the current president of Nicaragua?

Yes, thanks for making my point. You really can never tell how it will come out. And yes we have had a few discussions about Daniel. And Cuba had no part in that civil war? Had no imperialistic influences?

quote:

As for Bolivia, Che led a band of about 20 men in attempt to foment revolution against a brutal dictatorship. Not exactly an occupation carried out by the Cuban military against an unwilling populace.

You must know there is Cuban and Venezuelan military advisers in Bolivia now. I am not sure if they took a consensus of the population ahead of time. I know many are not happy about that. Are we now going to judge imperialism by the number of advisers or military. How much military was involved in Chile? Or even in Nicaragua during the revolution?

quote:

Current example is the Hamas situation, where the elected government is dismissed and the bastion of the elected government is being starved.

Sorry, our democracy decided that we would not subsidize things that were not in our best interest. Sunrise use to say the same thing as you. So you think the removal of gifts is somehow dismissing the government.

quote:

Oh, so the big, bad U.S. was AFRAID, and therefore somehow justified in quashing Iranian democracy?

Did you read the article? It talked about some of the seeds of the cold war being manifested in Iran. Thus we were afraid of Communist USSR, yes.

Also as we were talking about Hegemony in the other thread, it ties in nicely here that we also did not want USSR hegemonic control over the ME. And we especially were afraid of them getting a warm water port to sail their Navy in.

On the other side, maybe USSR would have had as much trouble in Iran as it did in Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
Please discuss the issues, not each other.

Did I miss something? I know Brent was ranting a bit, but I did not report anything, nor took anything personal.

If I have wandered off, let me know.
Thanks.
Ron

Kate, Kate, Kate.
I understand your strong desire to discuss that PDF report, but reposting it does not help you.

I responded to some of it, and alluded to some other with respect to my talk with Brent.

First, it does not fully discuss. No single paper can. Remember the map is not the territory?

Secondly it had some good points and brought up some factors that have influenced the geopolitical atmosphere, but what do you want to talk about?

If you want a true discussion then you need to start answering questions also. And no another cut and paste is not dialogue.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Kate, Kate, Kate.

...

If you want a true discussion then you need to start answering questions also. And no another cut and paste is not dialogue.

Ronald Rutherford,

Could you clarify your choice in salutation. I figure one Kate will do.

Also, could you clarify your standards for a "true discussion."

Thanks much.

Sorry Kate.
I guess since mine was in bold so often and I just felt like saying it more than once, I could take the liberty to do so.

A true discussion to me (as I think now) is where one person talks (post) and the next person talks. Taking turns while acknowledging the progress in the discussions. I think me and Brent are doing that. He has presented a view and I have responded with another view. I acknowledge his facts and he acknowledges mine when they are not at issue. You could say much as two attorneys try to make a discussion in a court room.

Hope that helps, Kate.

Perhaps dialogue could be improved.

I've saved back the material I put together from the Baker Institute and from the historian's discussion of the military story related to Abadan, Iran, because the shelf life of an internet exchange is much shorter than the one that applies to yesterday's newspaper. Putting it out there later, after the chit chat, will help get the analysis back to Iran.

As things crystalize, it's important to reframe them, restate them.

As I do, and as I will continue to do.