www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> Iraq: The Way Forward
A. G-C on Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:59:26 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Iraq: The Way Forward


Sorry of my bad English


On 11/01/07 12:54, "Benjamin Geer" <benjamin.geer {AT} gmail.com> probably wrote:

> On 11/01/07, Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh {AT} well.com> wrote:
> 
>> b) Venice is in fact becoming de-populated, with its natives moving
>> to the car-unfree mainland;
> 
> That's because tourism has driven up real estate prices to the point
> where locals can no longer afford to live there.  There are ways to
> prevent this from occurring in car-free cities, and some of these are
> discussed in the book _Carfree Cities_.  The author emphasises that
> Venice is not an ideal car-free city, and that it should be possible
> to build better ones; hence his detailed design proposal.

        ...
> 
>> c) it is a complete mistake to think that Americans' access to oil
>> depends on having troops in Iraq  =97or anywhere in the middle east
>> for that matter.
> 
> How do you explain the proliferation of US military bases in the
> Middle East[1] if those bases aren't intended to protect American
> access to oil?[2]

Trying a pragmatic prospective point of view from logic deductions; as in
current geopolitics several public and editorial acts can be observed by
anyone of us. Hypothesis are not certitudes, but possibilities.

Net interfering.

Associating or not the lobbies (but allied) the objective could be more
obviously to keep a military strategic position of US Defence at the south
of Russia and China and front of these powers for preventively secure by an
uncontested installation of US hegemony in this region of the world.

In between Europe and East Asia and thanks NATO it could be a South
continental domination from Pacific Ocean to Atlantic Ocean; what supposes
all the more local alliances with a part of Islam (can be Sunnite, can be
Shiite, depending of the country if it is directly associated or not with
the same interests can be in Defence, can be in strategy - economy).

Oil BUT Toward the civil nuclear (Texas again;-).

Because civil nuclear becoming now a predictable market of America (more may
be with inter agreements between FR and US for tech exchanges more
negotiations on the commercial territories in this field: through Anne
Lauvergeon -last sherpa of Mitterrand, after what she was protected by
working as New York agent of Lazarus Bank then beyond it she became herself
the boss as CEO of FR civil nuclear -since the last year. I.e. whether the
side of Chirac holds the space and the weapons or what it rests of it in UE
-EADS having essentially become the Dassault territory after the departures
of UK partner more of Lagardère interests that have gone to tribute US
projects -, he finished by leave the earth as civil nuclear in the side of
its possible socialist successor).

>From this point of view: India (Islam now having a good part of the
democratic power in this country) is subjected since the agreement of civil
nuclear signed by Bush at New Delhi in March 2006: what was a surprise in
Pakistan where they could hope since 2002 attack against the FR team of the
nuclear submarine that they would be the elected one by US, at the South of
Afghanistan, for this superiority on India, as for the both countries having
nuclear weapons...

Imagine what Iran yet now represents in this geo challenge, as well
commercial, as well financial, as well strategic, as well in matter of
defence, as well being the bloc of strategic singularity between the
Continental East Asia and the Continental West Europe. If Bush wants force
the war or install the region in insecurity (it can be a tactical choice to
make the wide of the question of human rights in such sanctuaries), do not
imagine that the new soldiers will be exclusively centred on the Iraqi
affair: but predictably to take more position from Saudi Arabia and Iraq
forcing the respect on Lebanon/ Israeli, more expecting the war with Iran -
may be more with Syria but Syria is more the problem of FR than of US.

Do not you see that they are both defined as "potential" enemy just being
supported by Russia (military) and may being an extend economic territory of
China? What forces the ultimate respect to Iran it is the question of
currencies part in dollar and part in Euro. But it is nothing in the larger
view.

It is exactly the key of the uncontested door of the hegemony of the US
power on the other world out of Federation of Russia an China which is not
the continent of America.
 

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net