Chumpsky, did you really just cite The Onion in a Great Debate? Am I being whooshed here? What the heck is going on?
In all fairness, I find the Admin’s excuse about not releasing its purported intelligence about Iraqi WMDs until after Saddam’s declaration has been made is plausible, that is, that they didn’t want to alert Saddam so that he could hastily include something that he hadn’t included, or do away with the evidence.
However, after Saturday’s submission of the required report, this plausibility evaporates.
It still prudent not to let on how much is known about the Iraqi WMD projects. That should be held back until the UN inspectors have had a chance to check things that are known to exist, but which Iraq doesn’t know that anyone is aware of.
I’m not blaming Bush, I’m blaming America for its hypocritical, hopelessly self-interested, and ethically negotiable pattern of foreign policies following WWII. cite
We let thousands of Kurds die with our promise to protect them still on their lips, we left a man we claimed threatened the world still in power and still with a standing army complete with US military hardware. And we did it all for influence in the region and its oil, and the PR. To say we were protecting freedom or some garbage like that is a myth of American propaganda. Its the same bullshit that has so galvanized the American public today.
Exactly how long do you expect war with Iraq would take? One month? Three or four at the very most? We have somewhat of a stacked deck here. We’re not using much Iraqi oil now anyway, so what’s a minor disruption for the long term security of more oil to blacken our skies with. Heaven forbid instead we upped the paltry $300 mil we budget to renewable fuel research to the $100 billion its estimated this war will cost. We’d have a fuel cell car that competes with diesel within five years, and then the gov could hand that technology over to American automakers. A Manhattan project to save the world not destroy it. Pipe dreams in this crappy era.
You know they say every great society fell because in its decadence it grew corrupt and forgetful of its founding virtues. I wonder if America is headed squarely down that path. Which would be a damn shame, because I happen to like living here.
The US has refused to SHARE its evidence with UN inspectors (thus putting the US, itself, in violation of the UN agreement, btw). How can the inspectors “check things that are known to exist” if the US won’t tell them what those things are?
—I’m not blaming Bush, I’m blaming America for its hypocritical, hopelessly self-interested, and ethically negotiable pattern of foreign policies following WWII.—
Hurrr… So your argument is that because we didn’t intervene in all possible situations, we never should, and if we do we should chastize ourselves?
And what the heck is with blaming “America.” It’s not like we’ve had the same leadership or the same philosophy on international policy for the entire century. Be specific. You blame the Kennedy administration, right? You blame Ford, right? Or is it just easier to attack “America” in general?
And, of course, in a totally ahistorical vacuum where discussions of pragmatism or context are avoided like the plauge.
—We let thousands of Kurds die with our promise to protect them still…—
Hurrr… as usual, you respond to question about whether or not stopping an invasion of Kuwait was worhwhile with a litany of other bad things you think we should have done but didn’t, apparently for no reason at all other than that “America” is evil and greedy. I didn’t say anything about freedom, I just said: isn’t it a good thing that we stopped the forcible invasion of one country by another? Sure, we forgot to cure AIDS and end homelessness while we were over there, but you can’t have everything: only Green Party administrations could possibly acheive complete success in everything.
—Exactly how long do you expect war with Iraq would take? One month? Three or four at the very most? We have somewhat of a stacked deck here. We’re not using much Iraqi oil now anyway, so what’s a minor disruption for the long term security of more oil to blacken our skies with.—
Rant on, brother Beavis. But maybe after you come down, you can tell me more about how this particular conspiracy is actually supposed to work. Is the oil important or not? Is it a paltry, irrelevant amount, or is it important for us to get pumping again? Is the conspiracy to drive prices up, or down?
Now, for Chumpsky…
—Indonesia was still occupying East Timor in 1991. In fact, the occupation continued, with full U.S. support, until 1999.—
As far as I can tell, China is still occupying Tibet, but your buddies at No Blood For Oil Screamed Very Loudly seem proud about that victory for communism.
Or maybe you missed the part of my comment about whether listing a bunch of whiney moaning about America’s failings is relevant to whether stopping Sadam was a good idea or not. Your estimation of why we should or should not have tried to wipe out the military capability of a guy that lobbed missles at Israel is beside the point.
—It is not about obtaining access to oil. It is about control of Iraq’s resources, which are vast.—
Explain? I haven’t heard this one yet.
—It is not about obtaining access to oil. It is about control of Iraq’s resources, which are vast.—
They do?
No, you implied that Bush was not responsible for Indonesa’s occupation of East Timor, which he clearly was. If he wanted to end the occupation of one country by another, all he had to do was withdraw support from Indonesia. Indeed, when Clinton was finally forced to threaten the Indonesian generals with a withdrawal of support in 1999, Indonesia withdrew within hours. So, clearly the Gulf War had nothing to do with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
It is not like Saddam is going to keep Iraq’s oil off the market. I mean, what is he going to do with it? Drink it?
No, it is about control. And, actually, the U.S. is not dependent on Middle East oil. It isn’t even about gas prices here. The U.S. just wants to control Middle Eastern oil.
You see, by far the largest supply of easily accessible oil lies underneath Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Most of the world, apart from the Americas, is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Thus, control of these vital resources provides one with an enormous lever of power. Furthermore, oil discovery rates have been decreasing over the past few years, so Middle Eastern oil will become only more important to the world in the future.
Iraq has by far the largest reservoir of untapped oil reserves in the world. It is also rich in other vital resources, like water. In fact, it is the only country in region with vast supplies of both water AND oil. And, in the region water is just as vital a resource as is oil. So, Iraq represents a tremendous prize, one that our leaders are obviously willing to kill large numbers of people to capture.
Those are your words not mine. I pointing out the falsehood and hypocrisy in declaring the need for America to “defend freedom” or some other malarkey when that’s clearly not our true interest. If little Kuwait is worthy of defense why isn’t Kashmir, Tibet, or Chechnya. Because Kuwait has strategic economic importance to us, and those nations have strategic importance to other powerful nations India/ Pakistan, China, and Russia respectively.
Who says I can’t criticize an entire country? Sure leadership changes, as does prevailing philosophies to some extent, but America is still not China and vice versa. The bottom line is America (along with other Western nations) has been meddling in the Middle East for 50 years, and its finally come back to bite us in the ass. You may counter with the we were only there to prevent the spread of communism argument. But to that, I ask then why were we removing democracies like the Mossedeq of Iran in ’53 and replacing them with puppet autocrats, and why have we continued to play this game after the fall of communism? Oil.
Ahistorical? Lack of pragmatism? Are you daft? I just went through 20 years of history and explained that virtually every move was made for pragmatic, but ultimately poor reasons, and directed to you to a cite with the other 30. Here, I’ll even recite for you. They are all authoritatively referenced.
INDONESIA 1957-1958
ECUADOR 1960 to 1963
CUBA 1959 to 1980s
URUGUAY 1964 to 1970
GUATEMALA 1962 to 1980s
ANGOLA 1975 to 1980s
BULGARIA 1990/ALBANIA 1991
IRAQ 1990-1991
AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992
HAITI 1986-1994
Further excerpts published by The Third World Traveler
CAMBODIA 1955-1973
THE CONGO 1960-1964
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1960-1966
EAST TIMOR 1975
EL SALVADOR 1980-1994
GRENADA 1979-1984
IRAN 1953
NICARAGUA 1981-1990
What I was implying was that the answer is obviously no, the invasion was absolutely not worthwhile due to the outcome (read: “litany of other bad things * think we shouldn’t have done”), and totally uneccessary for the Americans to go alone. The UN exists to deal with disputes like that one, and if not for bullheaded hegemonists like the US maybe they would have the authority and opportunity to do so.
Listen, I don’t think America is evil, just hypocritical, obscenely self-interested, and deceitful. Evil would imply I though America actually intends for bad things to happen to good people instead of just writing those things off as a necessary cost of doing business like we do. And I’m a Dem actually, you can redirect your jokes at them (they’re an easy target these days).
Anyway, conspiracy? No my friend, ideology. It goes something like this. Capitalism requires constant economic growth. Industrialized nations need oil to operate. Therefore industrialized capitalisitic states need a constant supply of oil. What exactly do you think we’ve been doing in the Middle East for the past 50 years? Spreading peace and love?
P.S. I’f i’m your brother Beavis does that make you Butthead? 
Just to add to the discussion, here’s a group dissecting Bush’s war speech:
Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq
http://www.accuracy.org/bush/
and the fictious report wasn’t from the UN it was, or rather wasn’t, from the IAEA:
Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm
Yes, we are still waiting for Chumpsky’s explanation on that one.
I’m pretty sure Chumpsky just posted it as a joke. He DOES know the Onion is a joke doesn’t he? Doesn’t he?
Dude, it was a freakin’ joke! What, are satirical websites now allowed in GD?