|
U-Know! Forum » Chomsky on Iraq |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 16, 2002, 23:50
|
||
|
from an interview with Noam Chomsky... ========== Of the various potential military operations that you mentioned, the one that I think is serious is Iraq. Again, that has nothing to do with international terrorism. The Iraq policy is also a kind of continuation, but it could change. They may consider this to be an opportunity to reestablish control over Iraq, which is extremely important. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, much of it under-developed or undeveloped. Saudi Arabia is the major one, Iraq is second, and it's substantial. It's estimated to be huge, way beyond the Caspian, East and Central Asian region. You can just be confident that the United States is not going to allow that to stay out of control and certainly not to fall under the influence of its rivals, like, say, France and Russia, which have the inside track now on Iraqi oil. So one way or another, the US will do what it can, and it can do a lot, to regain its control over those resources. It has nothing to do with terrorism, it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's atrocities. We know that for certain. The reason we know that is because, you hear Clinton, Tony Blair, Bush and [former Secretary of State] Albright, and the rest of them talking about what a monster Saddam Hussein is, we can't let him survive, he used chemical warfare against his own population and he carried out major massacres and so on. All of those charges are correct. But they're just missing three words, namely: with our support. It's true, he carried out all these atrocities, developing weapons of mass destruction -- with our support. The US and Britain supported him, and continued to support him well after the atrocities, continued to provide him with technology to develop weapons of mass destruction, as they knew, at a time when he was really dangerous, much more dangerous in the 1980's when this was going on than today. So the charges are correct, but they're plainly irrelevant. And they're just pure deception. Unless one points out, yeah, he did all these horrible things with our support, then this is just worse than lies. So it's not because of his atrocities, its not because of terrorism, to which he may have connections or not. (they haven't even tried to show anything). It's in order to regain control of, primarily, the oil resources in a very rich area. ==========
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 00:21
|
||
|
I love Chomsky, you quote Chomsky, therefore I love you. Nae luck but you deserve it. At the risk of burning at the stake, do you not think Chomsky sounds a bit like Mr Mackay from South Park when he talks ? I was on another forum where someone was insisting that "Total Iraqi oil exports are about 1 mm bbl per day. At a post-conflict, no war premium price of $20/bbl, and extraction costs of $10/bbl that's a $10 mm profit per day. Or $3.65 bln per year. Peanuts. Freakin' crumbs. You can't even fire up the US war machine for 3 weeks for that." Aside from the war costings, are those figures believable about Iraqi oil profits ? I don't know but I know a man who does.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 05:46
|
||
Good read - sez it like it iz!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 09:01
|
||
|
The issue isn't current production levels, which are pretty low given a decade of non-investment in the Iraqi oil infrastructure. The issue is, instead, reserves. Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world (after Saudi), at almost 115 billion barrels. That's a long way from peanuts. Also, it's right slap-bang in the middle of all the other oil rich nations (top 5: Saudi, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Iran in that order) which couldn't be a better strategic position should (say) the Kuwaiti regime get, say, a little unstable and require propping up maybe? Anyways, according to official US government sources, Iraq was the 6th largest supplier of oil to the USA (under oil-for-food) in 2001. According to unofficial sources, however, it was probably the 2nd largest after Saudi (thanks to the labyrinthine corridors of corruption that make up 'oil-for-food'). Saudi is the jewel in the crown of Hydrocarbon Man. Iraq, however, comes a close second, and production there can be ramped up dramatically given investment (and surprise, surprise, i've heard Condoleezza Rice - ex Director of ChevronTexaco by the way... has an oil tanker named after her - talking about "a long-term commitment" to Iraq after regime change, with plenty of US investment). This impending war is 99% about oil, and 1% about the fact that Saddam tried to have Dubya's daddy killed (OK, maybe 98% / 2%).
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7717 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 09:34
|
||
And it iz like it sez.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 09:36
|
||
|
I'm pledged to action when the invasion comes, and since its an oil war I'd like to target the oil companies rather than the military. I'd especially like to blockade the oil depots like the hauliers and farmers did during the fuel tax protests. They brought the country to its knees and changed government policy over night. Was anyone here involved in that protest, or have any advice on blockading oil depots ?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 10:02
|
||
|
Firstly, i wasn't involved in the last protest of the oil depots because i vehemently disagreed with the protesters. They were demanding cheaper petrol, let's remember. Demanding the "right" of inexpensive road travel. Pah! There's no such "right" when it's based upon a finite resource. It's a luxury. The sooner people wake up to this simple fact, the better. Secondly, i'm not sure that blockading fuel depots is (a) an effective protest against oil companies in the long run, (b) socially responsible, or (c) ethically justifiable. Fuel isn't like other "products". In physics, Energy is defined, quite simply, as "the ability to do work". Without energy society is scuppered. As 98% of our transportation energy is fossil fuels (and almost as much of our total energy) this means that without petrol, society is scuppered. Cut of a society's primary resource and pretty soon people start to go hungry, and eventually they starve. Hospitals cease functioning, public transport falls apart, industry and industrial agriculture grinds slowly to a halt, etc etc etc. Blockading fuel depots hurts oil companies in the short term by holding all of society hostage. And that's a crap way to protest (in my opinion). In the long run, they've not lost any of their product and shortages just inflate price. So when your protest ends, they'll make larger profits for a time until things return to normal. In the long run, you boost oil company profits with that tactic. The real protest is to examine your lifestyle and work out where oil companies fit into it. Then slowly start to eliminate them. Reduce your use of plastic (i'm not sure it's possible, these days, to actually stop using it altogether). Buy local products (start with food and work up - i'm almost 100% local these days... but i still get suckered in by tropical fruit). Stop using cars (walk, cycle and when absolutely necessary use public transport). These are first steps. If you really wanted to stop contributing to Big Oil, however, you'd have to start generating your own electricity (or do without), growing your own food (even the cuddliest of organic farms require some imported oil - if only to transport produce to the market), and changing your life in a thousand ways - large and small. Oil is the primary resource of our civilisation. Just as wood was to the Easter Islanders (find out what happened to them when it ran out). It is the foundation upon which all else is built. It is our ability to do work. So this war is being fought to protect your lifestyle (and mine, and everyone who posts to this message board). The effective protest is to cease participating in that lifestyle. We must stop being the root of the problem, before we can effectively solve it. PS: i am a long way from achieving this goal. Not preaching - just opining.
|
|||
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 10:06
|
||
|
Can I point out that that 'interview' is part of a hodge-podge of emails and face to face meetings collected and published over ayear ago under the title '9-11'. So, there you go. Before the dust had even settled on Ground Zero, Noam was predicting that we'd be exactly where we are today. Of course, he's just a paranoid conspiracy theorist liberal who should be poo-pooed and ignored at all times.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 10:15
|
||
|
Well, the interview was actually carried out by Nick Holt of AGR, in March of this year, just after the publication of 9-11 (i believe). But Chomsky does say something near identical in 9-11 (obviously). To be fair, though, it's not entirely prophetic to have envisioned a US incursion into Iraq even a couple of years ago. During the US presidential campaign, i predicted that should Bush win, we would see an invasion of Iraq in late 2003 (as a vote-winner in the 2004 campaign). 9-11 has probably brought that date forward, but if you buy into the paranoid delusion that we're running out of oil - as have i - then this invasion has always been an inevitability.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 17, 2002, 11:07
|
||
|
Blockading the oil depots is designed to scupper our society Jim, I can't deny that. I think our society needs scuppering if its going to wage an illegal war for profit. I know it is an extreme action, but it is the lesser of two evils. I never supported the last blockade for the same reasons as you. However, noone died from its consequences and government policy was changed. I agree with your suggestions for lifestyle change as the only long term strategy, but the war will not be delayed by that. If the parliamentary process fails, if public opinion is ignored then and the invasion is launched then an oil blockade is the best option for peace, imo that is ethical justification.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
