Re: "Of Course, It Was All About Iraq's Resources"

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:51:25 -0800, Dan Clore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Noam Chomsky: They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo 
>where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course it 
>was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question. 
>Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. 

saudi arabia's are much larger. saudi arabia's army is much weaker.
saudi oil infrastructure is in much better shape. if we wanted to
steal oil, we'd take theirs, or kuwait's

noam chomsky believes evil did not exist in the world before july 4
1776.

>
>They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely 
>defenseless,

really? everyone, including the french, believed they had WMD's. they
had the 4th largest army in the world. only an idiot like chomsky
would call iraq 'defenseless'.


>
>Second criteria is that the place attacked has to be 
>important enough to matter. There's no point taking over 
>Eastern Congo, which is also defenseless, but Iraq matters. 
>That's where the issue of oil comes up, since the United 
>States will end up with military bases right in the heart of 
>the oil producing region.

the entire iraqi GDP was 18 billion dollars, which the US GDP produces
in 4 hours. eastern congo did not have a nuclear program, never used
WMD's and was not thought, like iraq, to possess them.

chomsky's question is like asking 'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how
did you enjoy the play?'

>
>The third criteria is you have to somehow pretend it's a 
>threat to your existence. While the people of Kuwait and 
>Iran might be delighted to tear Saddam Hussein limb from 
>limb, they still did not regard him as a threat. No one 
>thought he was a threat.

really? any proof of that? oh. none.

>
>How many people know that Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam 
>Hussein golden spurs back in 1983?

chomsky is a fossil. he cant change his thinking with the times.
situations change. what happened 20 years ago is irrelevant.

does chomsky believe this entire thing hinged on a pair of spurs??
what an IDIOT!

>
>A little of that has begun to leak out, but how many people 
>know that Colin Powell, the present administration moderate, 
>was the National Security Advisor at the time of [the] 
>Halabja massacre, when the Reagan administration, responded 
>by simply increasing aid to Saddam Hussein, as did the first 
>Bush administration later.

chomsky's sotto voce message is that he's a genius and you're not. he
keeps asking 'how many people knew...' as if HE'S privy to info YOU'RE
not.

the situation is dynamic. chomsky, beholden to a fundamentalist hatred
of the US, is ossified. calcified. everytime he tries to think, he
breaks a neurological bone. i can hear the creaking from allentown PA
even though he's in cambridge, MA.

>
>They knew that this aid was used for chemical and biological 
>warfare, and for developing missiles and nuclear weapons. 
>But they did not care so the aid continued.

except the entire world changed. the largest suppliers of weapons to
iraq were russia and france, not the US. in the last 20 years, the US
gave iraq less than 1% of its weaponry. notice how chomsky doesnt
mention that?

>
>The Poll shows that a large majority of people in the United 
>States think that they should cut off aid to either of the 
>two parties, Israel or the Palestinians, if they refuse to 
>enter into goodwill negotiations.

chomsky never mentions that, while sharon and arafat were in
negotiations 3 years ago, israel was subjected to an unparalleled
level of homicide bomb attacks. fascist islamist thugs derailed the
process, and arafat supported these monsters.

chomsky, of course, ignores that. he's the most self hating jew in
existence.

>
>Of course not. You can go back to 1971 when Anwar Al Sadat, 
>the new president of Egypt offered a full peace treaty to 
>Israel with only one condition: That it withdraw from 
>Egyptian territory. Nothing about the Palestinians. Nothing 
>about the West Bank or Golan Heights. Just withdraw from 
>Egyptian territory and you can have a full peace treaty.
>
>Israel understood it, they considered it, they recognized it 
>was a genuine peace offer that they could accept and end the 
>state of war. They turned it down because they said it was 
>more important to expand settlements.

israel once possessed the entire sinai penisula. they gave it back to
support sadat and his peace plan. the islamist thugs continued to
attack.

chomsky ignores that.

>
>Since 1976, the first veto at the Security Council and in 
>fact back to 1971, the United States has been blocking, 
>unilaterally blocking a Middle East peace settlement.

hardly. every time peace gets close, islamist thugs step up their
homicide attacks, killing israeli children. chomsky ignores that. he
ignores the fact arafat has his OWN homicide bombing force, the 'al
aqsa martyrs brigade'.  he ignores the fact arafat has stolen over a
billion dollars in aid money. 

to chomsky, only jews and americans are wrong.

 A 
>
>Keynes pointed out 70 years ago that if you have financial 
>liberalization and free flow of capital, it will undermine 
>the possibility of democracy for a very simple reason: it 
>creates what economists call a virtual senate.
>
>A virtual parliament of investors and lenders who carry out 
>a moment by moment referendum on government policies. If 
>they don't like them they destroy the economy by capital 
>flight, by attacking the currency.

funny that free markets have led to the only democracies in the world.
only capitalist countries are free. there are no free socialist
countries. none.

>
>Since the new rules were established, there has been a very 
>striking attack on democracy, exactly as you'd expect. 
>There's been a decline of social economic policies all over 
>the industrial world because you just can't carry them out 
>against these pressures and in the third world's it's a 
>disaster.

funny that korea, taiwan and thailand all became democracies in the
last 20 years under these kinds of 'pressures'.  

>
>The international structure is designed to prevent 
>democratic choices, as are every other aspect of the 
>neo-liberal programmes. Take, for example, the privatisation 
>of services like water, education, health. There is no 
>economic motivation for this privatization, despite the wave 
>of privatization instigated by the World Bank.\

jeffrey sachs, professor of economics at harvard, has done a study of
why economies grow. chomsky, a professor of linguistics, knows zip
about economics, preferring failed socialist policies and state
planning

sachs finds that countries where govt corruption is rife dont grow.
what a surprise! and chomsky's policies continue to concentrate power
in the hands of corrupt governments. his policies always fail because
chomsky advocates govt supported thievery.

>
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/