Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Joey McGee]

Nope. Nobody invades anywhere purely because they are totalitarian oil producers. Saudi Arabia hasn't been invaded. Kuwait was invaded but not because Saddam Hussein thought Kuwait was a totalitarian menace.

You keep missing the point, all I'm saying is that what's more likely a) The U.S. invaded Iraq to steal the oil, or b) the combination of oil money and psychopathic totalitarianism led to events that provoked an invasion. That is, those countries are just slightly more likely to go crazy, it's really just a simple question.

What?

It's true. Hitchens Slate piece hasn't even turned up this week but he's selling articles individually now?

Who cares how they choose to deliver content? Maybe because Christopher will make more honest money for the same honest work do you have a problem with that? The essay is 5,000 words long how long are his regular articles? And the dig about him doing this because he's dying was tasteless and sad.

 

[Toontown]

You keep missing the point, all I'm saying is that what's more likely a) The U.S. invaded Iraq to steal the oil, or b) the combination of oil money and psychopathic totalitarianism led to events that provoked an invasion. That is, those countries are just slightly more likely to go crazy, it's really just a simple question.

You have transgressed against The Propaganda. Many of them want it to be all about stealing oil. Blaspheme against The Propaganda, and someone will invariably leap in and start verbally jerking you around in an extremely annoying manner.

Who cares how they choose to deliver content? Maybe because Christopher will make more honest money for the same honest work do you have a problem with that? The essay is 5,000 words long how long are his regular articles? And the dig about him doing this because he's dying was tasteless and sad.

It's all about diversions and smoke screens. He has already succeeded in wasting some of your time. The next goal is typically to drag you completely off topic.

 

[angrysoba]

You keep missing the point, all I'm saying is that what's more likely a) The U.S. invaded Iraq to steal the oil, or b) the combination of oil money and psychopathic totalitarianism led to events that provoked an invasion. That is, those countries are just slightly more likely to go crazy, it's really just a simple question.

I don't think the US (and the UK and others) invaded to take the oil. No. But at the same time I don't think the question of why the US (and the UK and others) invaded should need to be subject to so much speculation or be justified by so many different arguments.

Primarily the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had a dangerous weapons of mass destruction programme. This turned out to be false. At the same time there were others pushing the argument that the existence of WMDs were not important if Saddam Hussein could be overthrown and something like a democracy established. Still others are saying Iraq was a kind of flypaper for jihadis and it was important to give al Qaeda a bloody nose on the battlefield.

But maybe your idea is not far off from that of Tony Blair who has since said that 9/11 simply altered the "calculus of risk" meaning a pre-emptive strike is worthwhile on the basis that they didn't know what Saddam Hussein could have done.

I don't buy the argument myself but there you go.

I also don't buy the argument that the US went there to steal the oil.

Who cares how they choose to deliver content? Maybe because Christopher will make more honest money for the same honest work do you have a problem with that? The essay is 5,000 words long how long are his regular articles? And the dig about him doing this because he's dying was tasteless and sad.

Well, as Hitchens himself would say, "It takes a lot to make me cry."

I don't blame Hitchens for making as much money as he can while he's still alive. But it is plainly obvious that's what he's doing. Not just with this Kindle but the glut of books such as "The Quotable Hitchens" and "Blair Hitchens Debate Transcript" etc...

 

[Mycroft]

I suggest you read the first sentence of the offending post again

I did.

He's still just describing how the rules work. If you disagree, why don't you look them up and argue with him?

 

[angrysoba]

You have transgressed against The Propaganda. Many of them want it to be all about stealing oil. Blaspheme against The Propaganda, and someone will invariably leap in and start verbally jerking you around in an extremely annoying manner.

Well you clearly know what I think, don't you Toontown?

It's all about diversions and smoke screens. He has already succeeded in wasting some of your time. The next goal is typically to drag you completely off topic.

Wow! What a diabolical scheme I'm engaged in. I never knew.

What exactly is this topic anyway? Was Joey's post remotely on topic?

 

[Joey McGee]

But maybe your idea is not far off from that of Tony Blair who has since said that 9/11 simply altered the "calculus of risk" meaning a pre-emptive strike is worthwhile on the basis that they didn't know what Saddam Hussein could have done.

I don't buy the argument myself but there you go.

It's not far off but mine is just a thought experiment, meant to illustrate the illogic of the "oil conspiracy" or the related "imperialist conspiracy" which evidently is the family of theories that Chomsky isn't that far off from, which makes my post marginally related to the OP.

Well, as Hitchens himself would say, "It takes a lot to make me cry."

I don't blame Hitchens for making as much money as he can while he's still alive. But it is plainly obvious that's what he's doing. Not just with this Kindle but the glut of books such as "The Quotable Hitchens" and "Blair Hitchens Debate Transcript" etc...

Do you have a problem with people rewarding authors monetarily for their work? I imagine you'd only have respect for him if his sole income was a blogspot with a paypal donate button.

Are you insinuating that those books have no value and the people who buy them don't actually want to read them? This is silly, perhaps a hint of jealousy being masked as social criticism? The guy probably just takes whatever the best ideas are that his agents pitch at him.

 

[angrysoba]

It's not far off but mine is just a thought experiment, meant to illustrate the illogic of the "oil conspiracy" or the related "imperialist conspiracy" which evidently is the family of theories that Chomsky isn't that far off from, which makes my post marginally related to the OP.



Do you have a problem with people rewarding authors monetarily for their work? I imagine you'd only have respect for him if his sole income was a blogspot with a paypal donate button.

Paypal donate button!!!? I should hope not. And no Google ads either.

 

[funk de fino]

I did.

He's still just describing how the rules work. If you disagree, why don't you look them up and argue with him?

Read it again. Slooooowly. What is he justifying?

Flip it around if certain posters were talking about Israeli children.

 

[egslim]

No Marshal Plan for the recovery of the country.

The best part of the Marshal Plan was the US told the natives to do the planning and work themselves. The Plan's funds were used to buy the necessary materials in the US.

In Iraq all reconstruction was planned by the US (who as non-locals of course got things wrong), then performed by US contractors who were merely interested in profit, and didn't give a damn about the country.

My whole family moved to West Germany in 1950... 5 years after WWII.
And lived and moved around the country unthreatened by anything at all.
Thousands of us did.
Because there was an end-game plan

There was another difference between post-WWII Germany and modern Iraq.

The US fought WWII with the simple aim to defeat Germany. By the end Germans faced the choice between surrender or a futile death. If German civilians had taken up arms against the occupying forces they would have been exterminated, and the war would have been just as much an Allied victory. So they admitted defeat and cooperated, and the country was succesfully rebuilt.

Ignoring for a moment the WMD-ruse. The US went into Iraq to dispose of Saddam, with the aim to 'bring democracy' and expecting the Iraqi people to welcome them. In other words, the US depends for success in Iraq wholy on the Iraqi people. Having to fight an insurrection against people you were supposed to have liberated is proof of faillure.

 

[egslim]

You keep missing the point, all I'm saying is that what's more likely a) The U.S. invaded Iraq to steal the oil, or b) the combination of oil money and psychopathic totalitarianism led to events that provoked an invasion. That is, those countries are just slightly more likely to go crazy, it's really just a simple question.

It's a false dilemma.

With Saddam in charge Iraq was off-limits to foreign oil companies due to sanctions. Of course those oil companies wanted access to a country with major oil reserves. Ending the sanctions would have been political victory for Saddam and therefore defeat for the US/UK governments, so there was a strong motivation for a quick invasion to topple Saddam.

Second, instead of claiming oil-rich countries are more likely to go crazy. Regions with lots of oil draw a lot more attention from Western governments and newsmedia than your average piece of worthless desert. So are they more likely to go crazy, or are we more likely to notice their crazyness because we pay more attention?

Governments are not monolythic entities. Different factions and lobbyists have different interests. Sometimes those allign towards the same goal. Oil, defense contractors, some humanitarians, and a general desire to kick someone's ass after the WTC-attacks all contributed.

 

[JihadJane]

You keep missing the point, all I'm saying is that what's more likely a) The U.S. invaded Iraq to steal the oil, or b) the combination of oil money and psychopathic totalitarianism led to events that provoked an invasion. That is, those countries are just slightly more likely to go crazy, it's really just a simple question.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq


(The Independent, 19 April 2011)


Spot The Lies:


EXTRACT:

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

/EXTRACT

 

[Joey McGee]

Thanks Jane we've already been over that one though. In short it's not evidence of the oil conspiracy, if you disagree perhaps that is the thread to continue this in. Apparently the U.K. inquiry will be completed by fall, I look forward to the results (following along got boring quick)

 

[Pardalis]

How does this relate to Chomsky and OBL?

 

[JihadJane]

Thanks Jane we've already been over that one though. In short it's not evidence of the oil conspiracy, if you disagree perhaps that is the thread to continue this in. Apparently the U.K. inquiry will be completed by fall, I look forward to the results (following along got boring quick)

Blair calls it a conspiracy to muddy the waters. It's his way of closing down debate with ridicule. "Conspiracy" is a red herring.

Whether or not oil motivated the Anglo/US attack isn't a question of conspiracy. It's a question of about the military and economic strategy of oil-hungry, oil-dependent economic systems at the end of the era of cheap, easily extractable oil (like Iraq's).

 

[Pardalis]

It's a question of about military and economic strategy of oil-hungry, oil-dependent economic systems at the end of the era of cheap, easily extractable oil (like Iraq's).

So what?

As you said, The US and the UK are run by typical humans, and humans use violence to gain power. One doesn't need to evoke monsters to understand their actions. We are a monstrously violent species. The US and UK's war on Iraq was averagely human, unfortunately.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's a false dilemma.

With Saddam in charge Iraq was off-limits to foreign oil companies due to sanctions. Of course those oil companies wanted access to a country with major oil reserves. Ending the sanctions would have been political victory for Saddam and therefore defeat for the US/UK governments, so there was a strong motivation for a quick invasion to topple Saddam.

Second, instead of claiming oil-rich countries are more likely to go crazy. Regions with lots of oil draw a lot more attention from Western governments and newsmedia than your average piece of worthless desert. So are they more likely to go crazy, or are we more likely to notice their crazyness because we pay more attention?

I think that it's both but if oil was suddenly discovered in some other psychopathic dictatorship's land, is it going to make things better, worse or neutral? My intuition says it's going to make things worse. Maybe a better way of saying it is that the oil factor is more likely to cause a country to become corrupt than it is to cause a country invade for it.

Governments are not monolythic entities. Different factions and lobbyists have different interests. Sometimes those allign towards the same goal. Oil, defense contractors, some humanitarians, and a general desire to kick someone's ass after the WTC-attacks all contributed.

I agree with this holistic viewpoint, it's closer to what I actually think, mine was more of a poorly offered thought experiment

 

[Virus]

Blair calls it a conspiracy to muddy the waters. It's his way of closing down debate with ridicule. "Conspiracy" is a red herring.

Whether or not oil motivated the Anglo/US attack isn't a question of conspiracy. It's a question of about the military and economic strategy of oil-hungry, oil-dependent economic systems at the end of the era of cheap, easily extractable oil (like Iraq's).

Wow. Oil firms intersted in oil. In other news, Pope remains steadfast Catholic.

So where are all the lucrative contracts for Western oil firms?

 

[Joey McGee]

Blair calls it a conspiracy to muddy the waters. It's his way of closing down debate with ridicule. "Conspiracy" is a red herring.

Whether or not oil motivated the Anglo/US attack isn't a question of conspiracy. It's a question of about the military and economic strategy of oil-hungry, oil-dependent economic systems at the end of the era of cheap, easily extractable oil (like Iraq's).

Wow I am shocked that you are trying to shuck the conspiracy theorist label. Did you forget that the definition of conspiracy is "The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose"? Would going to war for oil and lying about the official story be evil and a crime? Yes. Is it a crime for business to plan ahead in order to serve it's interests when the war is over? No. Afghanistan has a trillion dollars worth of minerals in the ground that we would like to have. Did we go to war for that stuff too?

 

[JihadJane]

Wow I am shocked that you are trying to shuck the conspiracy theorist label. Did you forget that the definition of conspiracy is "The action of conspiring; combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose"? Would going to war for oil and lying about the official story be evil and a crime? Yes.

It's business as usual. War is a racket. Blair injected the conspiracy angle as a distraction and an attempted debate stopper, not as a way of owning up to his criminality.

Is it a crime for business to plan ahead in order to serve it's interests when the war is over? No.

They have the money. Power follows money.

In a corporatocracy like the US, business has infiltrated the government. It is, therefore, criminally culpable for the government's business-directed policies.

Afghanistan has a trillion dollars worth of minerals in the ground that we would like to have. Did we go to war for that stuff too?

Those vital minerals were quite likely included in the invaders' strategic considerations, yes, but the Great Game is regional, not confined to one country.

The encirclement of Russia with US bases is almost complete.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's business as usual. War is a racket. Blair injected the conspiracy angle as a distraction and an attempted debate stopper, not as a way of owning up to his criminality.

Excuse me? Why do you keep trying to say that Blair invented the conspiracy theory? Seems plain to everyone else that his statements are meant as responses to the CTs out there. Of course, you have no evidence of this or reason to think it, it just makes good narrative.

They have the money. Power follows money.

In a corporatocracy like the US, business has infiltrated the government. It is, therefore, criminally culpable for the government's business-directed policies.

lol wut? So we're going to put "business" on trial one day? Can you make a coherent argument or just "business, government, war, bad, conspiracy"

Those vital minerals were quite likely included in the invaders' strategic considerations

Why? Other than the fact that "business, government, war, bad, conspiracy"

yes, but the Great Game is regional, not confined to one country.

Huh? No offence here but, "The Great Game"? why is the ct world so steeped in the occult terminology? It's like dungeons and dragons for policy wonk wannabes

The encirclement of Russia with US bases is almost complete.

Really? You mean there's tension between those two countries? Do you have a map or something? When does Alex Jones say the war is going to start?