Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[egslim]

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.

I got curious, and looked up some data. This lists countries by oil production. This list sorts countries by perceived corruption.

There are nine countries with a corruption score of <2. Only two of them are among the top 20 oil producers. I don't see the correlation your intuition predicts.

And real invasions are rare nowadays. Most conflicts are civil wars. If we consider real invasions the West got actively involved in during the last 20 years, then I think that includes only Kuwait (the liberation of), Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the three were oil-rich countries, so it seems oil does increase the chance of invasion. On the upside, if you're invaded by a third world country the US is likely to come in and kick them out.

 

[Joey McGee]

I got curious, and looked up some data. This lists countries by oil production. This list sorts countries by perceived corruption.

There are nine countries with a corruption score of <2. Only two of them are among the top 20 oil producers. I don't see the correlation your intuition predicts.

And real invasions are rare nowadays. Most conflicts are civil wars. If we consider real invasions the West got actively involved in during the last 20 years, then I think that includes only Kuwait (the liberation of), Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the three were oil-rich countries, so it seems oil does increase the chance of invasion. On the upside, if you're invaded by a third world country the US is likely to come in and kick them out.

That's interesting, I see what you are saying. If we take those two examples, we're really just talking about Saddam. With Kuwait, it really was about oil and money for Saddam, but it was clearly an insane decision. To me this is the story of psychopathic totalitarianism with the oil factor being exacerbating but incidental. This was all brought about by the criminally insane forces within those regions.

We have the benefit of hindsight, but how could these events not have taken place? The forces of liberty and totalitarianism are destined to clash, there is not enough room on the planet for both of them forever. And these people were beyond reach, they were beyond reason, they could have joined the modern world and been a noble country by now but they denied reality and forced themselves into extinction. Delusion upon delusion, the root of modern wars, in my eyes.

 

[egslim]

That's interesting, I see what you are saying. If we take those two examples, we're really just talking about Saddam. With Kuwait, it really was about oil and money for Saddam, but it was clearly an insane decision. To me this is the story of psychopathic totalitarianism with the oil factor being exacerbating but incidental. This was all brought about by the criminally insane forces within those regions.

The US supported Saddam in his war against Iran. With that alliance in mind Saddam calculated the US would ultimately accept his quick conquest of Kuwait. And if it hadn't been post-Cold War he might even have been correct. He took a risk and miscalculated, but it was no insane decision.

And the 2003 Iraq war was a war of choice for the US, with the Bush administration looking for an excuse to get rid of Saddam. So we have one 'oil'-war by Saddam, and one by the US.

It's really no stretch to believe that posession of a valuable natural resource increases foreign meddling in your country, and even the risk of invasion.

The forces of liberty and totalitarianism are destined to clash, there is not enough room on the planet for both of them forever.

Sure there is. Liberty and totalitarianism form a spectrum. Some countries tend towards one or the other, but every country is a mix. Countries mainly clash when (perceived) interests collide.

And these people were beyond reach, they were beyond reason, they could have joined the modern world and been a noble country by now but they denied reality and forced themselves into extinction. Delusion upon delusion, the root of modern wars, in my eyes.

Who are 'these people'?

 

[Joey McGee]

Sure there is. Liberty and totalitarianism form a spectrum. Some countries tend towards one or the other, but every country is a mix. Countries mainly clash when (perceived) interests collide.

In that sense yes but what I really mean is the type of organization that is beyond the point of no return such as North Korea who is currently facing another great starvation event next month.

Who are 'these people'?

Really this would include anyone who was responsible for turning these enemy nations into enemy nations. Somehow the rest of the world learns to get along but they decide not to join us? I think those people are crazy. There is no sane reason to fight a war anymore. Is there a war today where both sides have legitimate grievances?

 

[UWdude]

There is no sane reason to fight a war anymore.

The forces of liberty and totalitarianism are destined to clash, there is not enough room on the planet for both of them forever. And these people were beyond reach, they were beyond reason, they could have joined the modern world and been a noble country by now but they denied reality and forced themselves into extinction. Delusion upon delusion, the root of modern wars, in my eyes.

So by that logic, who is starting the wars are the delusional ones?

Your doublespeak is laughable.

 

[egslim]

In that sense yes but what I really mean is the type of organization that is beyond the point of no return such as North Korea who is currently facing another great starvation event next month.

I see what you mean. The nice thing about autocracies is they usually collapse by themselves eventually due to succession problems, so we can just wait them out.

Really this would include anyone who was responsible for turning these enemy nations into enemy nations.

To a large extent the responsibility for making enemies lies with the US government. The US meddles a lot in other countries, not everyone appreciates that. And the US tends to be rather vengeful. Take Cuba, which is under embargo by the US, over something that happened 40+ years ago.
In the wake of the WTC-attacks Iran actually provided valuable support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Bush responded by labelling Iran part of the 'Axis of Evil'. After that the staunchly anti-American Ahmadinejad was elected.
Even North Korea has some valid grievances against the US. At the end of the Cold War Russia and China recognized South Korea. The US refused to recognize North Korea, or establish an embassy there.

The fact is today neither the US nor any of its vital interests are under threat from attack by other countries. But the US continues to expand what it considers its interests, in large part to warrant the Pentagon's massive budget. And that threatens countries which are on less than favourable terms with the US, making them enemies.

 

[JihadJane]

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.

Because, as far as I'm aware, he was the first public figure to use the "Conspiracy Theorist" smear against people pointing out the connections between oil, aggressive invasion (on false pretenses) and Iraq. Perhaps you know of someone who did it before him. I'd be interested to know who it was and to see any references you may be able to provide.

The "Conspiracy Theory" approach to international politics seems to stunt otherwise intelligent people's analytical abilities in a fog a over-excited ridiculing.

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"

No, the recent, unpunished, successful, multi-billion dollar heist by the financial industry demonstrates that big business operates beyond the reach of the law.

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

Because those minerals are vital for the continuation of modern, high-tech, industrial civilization.

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

Perhaps such a bizarre perception is down to ignorance as to what the Great Game refers to or, maybe, too much time spent playing computer games or similar!

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?

Your request for a map suggests you have a lot of research to do.

I don't know what Alex Jones has got to do with it. It looks like you are doing a Tony Blair and employing a cheap, propagandistic trick in favor of rational analysis.

 

[Joey McGee]

To a large extent the responsibility for making enemies lies with the US government. The US meddles a lot in other countries, not everyone appreciates that. And the US tends to be rather vengeful. Take Cuba, which is under embargo by the US, over something that happened 40+ years ago.
In the wake of the WTC-attacks Iran actually provided valuable support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Bush responded by labelling Iran part of the 'Axis of Evil'. After that the staunchly anti-American Ahmadinejad was elected.
Even North Korea has some valid grievances against the US. At the end of the Cold War Russia and China recognized South Korea. The US refused to recognize North Korea, or establish an embassy there.

The fact is today neither the US nor any of its vital interests are under threat from attack by other countries. But the US continues to expand what it considers its interests, in large part to warrant the Pentagon's massive budget. And that threatens countries which are on less than favourable terms with the US, making them enemies.

I'm not saying it's perfect but in this particular situation, under these particular rules I think these considerations are nullified by the extreme threat of these rulers. It would be objectively better for everyone's quality of life if they just joined the peaceful nations. It's not like the world is going to come in and steal everything and keep them underfoot. If they really decide to become peaceful they could have it all, it would be more or less fair. If we did nothing would they cease to be criminals? Absolutely not. Meanwhile the whole world is trying to focus on progression and justice at home.

Obviously there are criminals and conspiracies at all levels of our society, but generally if there are legitimate grievances there are sympathetic voices in our democratic nations, they have the opportunity to make their case. What is your position of how the world should conduct foreign policy to bring about peace? What are the grievances that should be addressed right now? I mean I have been appalled at how the war has been conducted from time to time like everyone else, I could probably name a few, but how really does the international community need to change?

 

[JihadJane]

I'm not saying it's perfect but in this particular situation, under these particular rules I think these considerations are nullified by the extreme threat of these rulers. It would be objectively better for everyone's quality of life if they just joined the peaceful nations. It's not like the world is going to come in and steal everything and keep them underfoot. If they really decide to become peaceful they could have it all, it would be more or less fair. If we did nothing would they cease to be criminals? Absolutely not. Meanwhile the whole world is trying to focus on progression and justice at home.

Obviously there are criminals and conspiracies at all levels of our society, but generally if there are legitimate grievances there are sympathetic voices in our democratic nations, they have the opportunity to make their case. What is your position of how the world should conduct foreign policy to bring about peace? What are the grievances that should be addressed right now? I mean I have been appalled at how the war has been conducted from time to time like everyone else, I could probably name a few, but how really does the international community need to change?

US foreign policy has nothing to do with "bringing about peace". It is about permanent war for profit.

 

[Joey McGee]

Because, as far as I'm aware, he was the first public figure to use the "Conspiracy Theorist" smear against people pointing out the connections between oil, aggressive invasion (on false pretenses) and Iraq. Perhaps you know of someone who did it before him. I'd be interested to know who it was and to see any references you may be able to provide.



The "Conspiracy Theory" approach to international politics seems to stunt otherwise intelligent people's analytical abilities in a fog a over-excited ridiculing.

But that would be a conspiracy theory, technically, since that would be a crime requires people conspiring together secretly, obviously. Is this not absolutely clear as day?

No, the recent, unpunished, successful, multi-billion dollar heist by the financial industry demonstrates that big business operates beyond the reach of the law.

So you're of the opinion that was a conspiracy too?

Because those minerals are vital for the continuation of modern, high-tech, industrial civilization.

Yeah so where is the concrete evidence we are abusing anyone's wealth or planning to on this issue.

Perhaps such a bizarre perception is down to ignorance as to what the Great Game refers to or, maybe, too much time spent playing computer games or similar!

Heh, yeah that's true. Well I thought it was more like "The Great Work" or any of those silly scary sounding endgame memes.

Your request for a map suggests you have a lot of research to do.

No really if you have a definition of what complete would look like and an outline of where they plan to build them and generally just a reference for some context for this claim.

I don't know what Alex Jones has got to do with it. It looks like you are doing a Tony Blair and employing a cheap, propagandistic trick in favor of rational analysis.

No honestly what is going to happen after this base network is complete do you know? Because the fact that the U.S. is building bases all over the place really isn't news or that significant given ancient history.

 

[Joey McGee]

US foreign policy has nothing to do with "bringing about peace". It is about permanent war for profit.

I think some people can rightly expect to be in business for a very long time, that much is true. The rest nah we'd expose a permanent war for profit, they could never pull a conspiracy on me What is your plan for peace what would you tell the world would it listen?

 

[egslim]

I'm not saying it's perfect but in this particular situation, under these particular rules I think these considerations are nullified by the extreme threat of these rulers.

What extreme threat?

Fidel Castro hasn't posed a threat to the US for more than 40 years, he's merely an embarassment.

Iran under Ahmadinejad's predecessor gave active support to US efforts in Afghanistan.

North Korea's position is one of weakness. The country makes a lot of threatening noise, but if it does start a war it will inevitably lose.

It would be objectively better for everyone's quality of life if they just joined the peaceful nations. It's not like the world is going to come in and steal everything and keep them underfoot. If they really decide to become peaceful they could have it all, it would be more or less fair.

Reading your description of what it means to 'join the peaceful nations', what you're really saying is 'accept worldwide US hegemony'. Because countries like the US and UK intervene in far too many conflicts to be considered 'peaceful' by any reasonable standard.

If you want to be a worldwide hegemon, fine. If you expect sympathy from me because doing so makes you enemies, tough cookies.

What is your position of how the world should conduct foreign policy to bring about peace? What are the grievances that should be addressed right now?

Foreign policy should be based on promoting national interests, from a realist perspective. Peace is a means to an end, not a goal itself.

The rest nah we'd expose a permanent war for profit, they could never pull a conspiracy on me

It's not necessarily a conspiracy. The US has a number of defense contractors who spend a significant amount of money on lobbyists and campaign contributions. The Pentagon, like any bureaucracy, wants to increase its budget. So does the intelligence community. All these people have a strong motivation to exaggerate foreign threats.

 

[angrysoba]

To a large extent the responsibility for making enemies lies with the US government. The US meddles a lot in other countries, not everyone appreciates that. And the US tends to be rather vengeful. Take Cuba, which is under embargo by the US, over something that happened 40+ years ago.
In the wake of the WTC-attacks Iran actually provided valuable support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. Bush responded by labelling Iran part of the 'Axis of Evil'. After that the staunchly anti-American Ahmadinejad was elected.
Even North Korea has some valid grievances against the US. At the end of the Cold War Russia and China recognized South Korea. The US refused to recognize North Korea, or establish an embassy there.

The fact is today neither the US nor any of its vital interests are under threat from attack by other countries. But the US continues to expand what it considers its interests, in large part to warrant the Pentagon's massive budget. And that threatens countries which are on less than favourable terms with the US, making them enemies.

A few things about this.

While I disagree with much of Joey's geopolitical analysis (What's more likely, oil makes you crazy or I have a unicorn in my underpants?) I think that some of the well-known criticisms of the US are not valid.

In particular when you say that China and Russia recognized South Korea at the end of the Cold War but the US didn't recognize North Korea then you are assuming that that would be a fair quid-pro-quo. In fact, not only did Russia and China recognize South Korea but their own relations with North Korea noticably chilled. They no longer provided the massive amounts of aid to the country that they did during the Cold War which in turn led North Korea to having to implement their Songun (Army First policy). The US on the other hand actually increased its aid to North Korea as did Japan - which is another country that doesn't have normalized relations with North Korea due to the North's abduction of its citizens - something that hasn't been resolved to Japan's satisfaction.

Essentially, North Korea's problems are almost completely of its own making (although they may have had legitimate grievances about how badly they were bombed in the war they started in 1950) and non-recognition of it as a country is one of the least of these. (The US officialy doesn't recognize The Republic of China either).

I also think that while the US probably needn't maintain an embargo against Cuba anymore it seems to be quite telling that the Communist paradise in the Caribbean's biggest gripe is that the Big Bad Capitalist Bully won't do business with it. Well, why not trade with everyone else? Again, it seems that their old allies have abandoned it and not providing the aid they required anymore.

Slapping Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" was perhaps the stupidest and most provocative mistake of Bush's post-9/11 policy. Well, okay, after the invasion of Iraq perhaps. But Iranians actually mourned the 9/11 attacks en masse and, as you say, assisted the US in its Afghanistan campaign. (In fact, if the truth be told, it even assisted in Iraq.) But the argument back then was that even if some people such as Khatami seemed like affable Western philosophers in Ayatollah robes and talked about the Dialogue Between Civilizations in response to Huntingdon then the reality was that Iran was still ruled by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader. Of course, when Ahmadinejad came to power the narrative changed abruptly to Ahmadinejad being a total dictator with the ambitions of Hitler.

There's far too much BS about Iran-US for a rational policy right now. And some of that BS comes from the left and some of it from the right.

 

[egslim]

In particular when you say that China and Russia recognized South Korea at the end of the Cold War but the US didn't recognize North Korea then you are assuming that that would be a fair quid-pro-quo.

Not exactly.

Recognition of a country does not in any way imply approvement of its government or policies. Since the North Korean government is indisputably in charge of North Korea, diplomatic recognition of this country is the only rational course of action.

However, in light of the Cold War, and considering that China and the Soviet Union did not recognize South Korea, it was a fair quid-pro-quo for the US to not recognize North Korea either.

After the Cold War China and Russia ceased this childishness, the US should have done the same. Like I said, the US is rather vengeful.

In addition to diplomatic recognition, North Korea also wants a peace treaty with the US. Since the two countries stopped fighting more than 50 years ago, it's almost comical the US doesn't just sign a peace treaty and be done with it.

I also think that while the US probably needn't maintain an embargo against Cuba anymore it seems to be quite telling that the Communist paradise in the Caribbean's biggest gripe is that the Big Bad Capitalist Bully won't do business with it. Well, why not trade with everyone else?

Because everyone else is either dirtpoor, or on the other side of an ocean.

But do you think disagreement with Cubas internal economic system is a valid reason to embargo the country?

Slapping Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" was perhaps the stupidest and most provocative mistake of Bush's post-9/11 policy. Well, okay, after the invasion of Iraq perhaps. But Iranians actually mourned the 9/11 attacks en masse and, as you say, assisted the US in its Afghanistan campaign. (In fact, if the truth be told, it even assisted in Iraq.) But the argument back then was that even if some people such as Khatami seemed like affable Western philosophers in Ayatollah robes and talked about the Dialogue Between Civilizations in response to Huntingdon then the reality was that Iran was still ruled by the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader. Of course, when Ahmadinejad came to power the narrative changed abruptly to Ahmadinejad being a total dictator with the ambitions of Hitler.

There's far too much BS about Iran-US for a rational policy right now. And some of that BS comes from the left and some of it from the right.

Indeed, though I see only right and far-right in the US.

When Joey McGee talks about 'joining the peaceful nations', what he describes is submitting to US hegemony. And weak countries who refuse to do so get economically bullied, militarily threatened and politically cheated by the US.

 

[bikerdruid]

US foreign policy has nothing to do with "bringing about peace". It is about permanent war for profit.

this is the fact that many here just hand-wave away.

 

[Mycroft]

Read it again. Slooooowly. What is he justifying?

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

If a Hamas militant is shooting at an Israeli soldier, misses and kills an Israeli child with that shot...it's not illegal. It's sad, yes, as it's sad when any child dies needlessly, but it would not be illegal.

If the IDF built a gun turret on top of a children's hospital, and then hostilities broke out with Palestinians forces and the Palestinians were able to drop a JDAM on top of it, the responsibility for the deaths of those hundreds of children would be the IDF for making the children's hospital a target, and not the Palestinians who dropped the bomb.

There are rules to war, and the rules apply to both sides equally.

You don't see this issue "flipped around" because the IDF doesn't put military hardware on top of children's hospitals, but Hamas does. It's not about who's children get killed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

US foreign policy has nothing to do with "bringing about peace". It is about permanent war for profit.

In order to make a profit, the US would have had to rake in a trillion dollars over the last ten years from the wars.

I don't think that happened. I don't even see how it could happen.

 

[angrysoba]

Not exactly.

Recognition of a country does not in any way imply approvement of its government or policies. Since the North Korean government is indisputably in charge of North Korea, diplomatic recognition of this country is the only rational course of action.

However, in light of the Cold War, and considering that China and the Soviet Union did not recognize South Korea, it was a fair quid-pro-quo for the US to not recognize North Korea either.

After the Cold War China and Russia ceased this childishness, the US should have done the same. Like I said, the US is rather vengeful.

In addition to diplomatic recognition, North Korea also wants a peace treaty with the US. Since the two countries stopped fighting more than 50 years ago, it's almost comical the US doesn't just sign a peace treaty and be done with it.

I don't think it is childishness that leads the US to not recognizing North Korea. South Korea and Japan have rather adult reasons for not recognizing the country. North Korea does have a policy of extortion to get what it wants. The US frequently goes for half-measures by agreeing to meetings and negotiations and light-water reactors and food aid.

Maybe it would be a good idea to call Pyongyang's bluff and dangle a peace treaty in front of North Korea and see what it does. I don't have the same faith as you that it would be a case of being "done with it" though. What I suspect would happen would be an interminable process in which Kim Jong-il could make silly territorial demands that South Korea won't agree to while saying the US is grovelling on its knees before the Dear Leader.

This is actually fairly relevant to the OP as Chomsky (per Bruce Cumings) is very much of the opinion that simply doing what Pyongyang wants is the way to go to solve the Korean peninsula crisis. I don't actually have the same faith in Kim Jong-il and think he would lose his legitimacy to govern if he were to sign a full peace treaty (that's why I think it would be interesting to call his bluff).

Because everyone else is either dirtpoor, or on the other side of an ocean.

But do you think disagreement with Cubas internal economic system is a valid reason to embargo the country?

No. I said that there is probably no reason to embargo Cuba any longer.

Indeed, though I see only right and far-right in the US.

When Joey McGee talks about 'joining the peaceful nations', what he describes is submitting to US hegemony. And weak countries who refuse to do so get economically bullied, militarily threatened and politically cheated by the US.

I think Joey might simply be quite young. It's an idea that many younger people might have that the world is made up of mostly goodies and baddies. The US media comes in for a lot of (deserved) stick for painting the world as simplistically as this. However, what I do worry about is when I see some people (I'm not saying you, or necessarily Chomsky - though he does sometimes skirt that line) take this simplistic calculus and merely invert the pluses and minuses. The state propaganda of North Korea and Iran is really, really honestly far worse and far more right-wing than even a lot of the crap on US cable.

 

[angrysoba]

In order to make a profit, the US would have had to rake in a trillion dollars over the last ten years from the wars.

I don't think that happened. I don't even see how it could happen.

I think it is fair to give a strong form of the argument that the Military Industrial Complex people talk about.

While Smedley Butler and others may once have believed that war would increase the coffers of a nation state's treasury I think that these days the idea is that there are some businessmen who build war planes and guns and run mercenary armies who personally stand to gain a lot of money and who don't give a flying fig about the nation itself. I guess the idea is that they can influence people who are elected to places in government either by promising employment to the local population of constituencies which those elected represent or by good old fashioned bribing and possibly contributing to election funds etc...

The point is that simply looking at the revenue and overheads on the US ledger won't tell you that war is a business because "the US" doesn't profit from war. The vested interests of those who run the US profit from war. In other words, it is somewhat conspiratorial but one that can't be easily dismissed.

 

[Joey McGee]

What extreme threat?

Fidel Castro hasn't posed a threat to the US for more than 40 years, he's merely an embarassment.

I wasn't referring to him but what would you do differently about Cuba if you were the President? They're not exactly people we want to trip over ourselves to work with.

Iran under Ahmadinejad's predecessor gave active support to US efforts in Afghanistan.

And that somehow negates the danger Iran currently poses to his subjects and the world?

North Korea's position is one of weakness. The country makes a lot of threatening noise, but if it does start a war it will inevitably lose.

But it's playing with the lives of 1-6 million people at the moment which is a crime beyond comprehension. They are a danger to the world in this way.

Reading your description of what it means to 'join the peaceful nations', what you're really saying is 'accept worldwide US hegemony'. Because countries like the US and UK intervene in far too many conflicts to be considered 'peaceful' by any reasonable standard.

If you want to be a worldwide hegemon, fine. If you expect sympathy from me because doing so makes you enemies, tough cookies..

Honestly I don't believe in the "permanent war is more desirable than peace" conspiracy theory. If you could make an objective case for a path to achieving more global peace and well-being that this "hegemony" is not taking I would like to hear it. Everyone has criticisms of how things have been done in the past, but really what should be done differently in the context of now.

You don't have to submit to the world powers to become a peaceful and economically rich nation. Just stop committing crimes against humanity and other nations. There are plenty of countries doing just fine that operate in stark contrast to what we would prefer but still pose no risk of sanctions or attack. While there may be a tendency in some quarters towards imperialism, in general the motivation is truly global peace.

Foreign policy should be based on promoting national interests, from a realist perspective. Peace is a means to an end, not a goal itself.

I think the majority of the world's people desire peace on earth nations and laws be damned.

It's not necessarily a conspiracy. The US has a number of defense contractors who spend a significant amount of money on lobbyists and campaign contributions. The Pentagon, like any bureaucracy, wants to increase its budget. So does the intelligence community. All these people have a strong motivation to exaggerate foreign threats.

I'm for permanent improvement of military superpower out of pure logic. The existence of these entities and the presence of a vested interest doesn't prove MIHOP or LIHOP for world events, acute and sublte, long-term and short-term.