This war on terrorism is bogus
September 7, 2003 6:36 PM Subscribe
This war on terrorism is bogus "The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be
that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks
of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a
wholly different agenda - the US goal of world
hegemony, built around securing by force command
over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted yesterday
Wait a second, the United States is using the pretense of terrorism to make an attempt to control the world's oil? Shit.
posted by angry modem at 6:42 PM on September 7, 2003
posted by angry modem at 6:42 PM on September 7, 2003
and this bush terrorism pancake, it vibrates? do you need a television to pony this? plo chop!
posted by andrew cooke at 6:50 PM on September 7, 2003
posted by andrew cooke at 6:50 PM on September 7, 2003
Good! for a a moment I had believed that 3000 dead and terror cells in countries worldwide and constant threats and killings in Afghanistan and Phillipines and Africa and Indonesia (20 of 22 worldwide conflicts) and screams from Muslim religious leaders was true. Glad to find out it never existed or if it did, it was small and in no way justified a war on terror. For a better look on how and when and why we intervene, always, on the world scene, see NY Times, This Sunday's issue.
posted by Postroad at 7:08 PM on September 7, 2003
posted by Postroad at 7:08 PM on September 7, 2003
postroad, then why have we all but given up on afghanistan? Why is only 1 billion of the 87 billion bush just asked for going to afghanistan?
all the dead and the countries and the terror cells you mention are connected to al qaeda and its offshoots, not iraq.
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on September 7, 2003
all the dead and the countries and the terror cells you mention are connected to al qaeda and its offshoots, not iraq.
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on September 7, 2003
the bigger question is why don't I hear about this in mainstream media? Mefi's all know all of this..... How do we get the word out to Middle America?
posted by drinkmaildave at 7:42 PM on September 7, 2003
posted by drinkmaildave at 7:42 PM on September 7, 2003
Could it just as reasonably be said that the 'War on Drugs' is the US attempting to achieve world hegemony over the flow of drugs?
OPEC is dominated by two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. If the two of them agreed to cut off oil to the western world, the resulting economic catastrophe could cost the US alone *literally* trillions of dollars a day. (Compare with the RR strike of a few years ago resulting in the loss of a vast amount of money each day.)
And not only that, remember in 1973, when they decided to just restrict the flow a little?
Now compare that to the US. In this case some years ago, when the USDA became concerned that the US, Canada, and Argentina were supplying most of the world's grain--creating a potential disaster where, instead of buying our grain, the rest of the world would *demand* we give it to them.
Instead of trying to lock up the market, the USDA started a huge crash program to create grains that would grow in previously barren, marginally arable land. Then they GAVE those grains away. (Which is what these 3rd and 4th world farmers used until Monsanto came along with even better grains, just a few years ago.)
In other words, though the US might GET hegemony, it doesn't WANT hegemony. And though the oil nations couldn't rule the world, they would certainly love to try--or at least do their level best to muck everything up--along with large numbers of other tyrants and villains.
So what is the value of an Iraq that loves the US? It breaks the Saudi stranglehold on oil; it protects the US from having a hostile power cut off our oil shipping, using both the Atlantic and Pacific to transport oil here; it puts a democracy in the heart of a region that hates and fears democracy.
And this is the essence of the "War on Terrorism". It is not a fight against Moslems, it is a fight against Vandals. People who hate and fear technology beyond the 6th Century, often but not exclusively religious fanatics. Those who stand for every abhorrent thing: murder, torture, mutilation, slavery, ignorance, pestilence, racism, sexism, you name it.
People utterly blinded by hate. And it doesn't matter what tome they swear compels them to kill and destroy, or the priest of whatever stripe that motives them. They ARE the enemy, deserving of less sympathy then a rabid dog.
It has long been a luxury to ignore such people. To allow them to live and die in their stinking backwaters. But there can be no pity for those who would force others to cling to ignorance and poverty and vileness by destroying civilization.
The peasants of the world must adapt to, or at least accept, change and modernity. Their only other alternative is obliteration.
posted by kablam at 7:48 PM on September 7, 2003
OPEC is dominated by two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. If the two of them agreed to cut off oil to the western world, the resulting economic catastrophe could cost the US alone *literally* trillions of dollars a day. (Compare with the RR strike of a few years ago resulting in the loss of a vast amount of money each day.)
And not only that, remember in 1973, when they decided to just restrict the flow a little?
Now compare that to the US. In this case some years ago, when the USDA became concerned that the US, Canada, and Argentina were supplying most of the world's grain--creating a potential disaster where, instead of buying our grain, the rest of the world would *demand* we give it to them.
Instead of trying to lock up the market, the USDA started a huge crash program to create grains that would grow in previously barren, marginally arable land. Then they GAVE those grains away. (Which is what these 3rd and 4th world farmers used until Monsanto came along with even better grains, just a few years ago.)
In other words, though the US might GET hegemony, it doesn't WANT hegemony. And though the oil nations couldn't rule the world, they would certainly love to try--or at least do their level best to muck everything up--along with large numbers of other tyrants and villains.
So what is the value of an Iraq that loves the US? It breaks the Saudi stranglehold on oil; it protects the US from having a hostile power cut off our oil shipping, using both the Atlantic and Pacific to transport oil here; it puts a democracy in the heart of a region that hates and fears democracy.
And this is the essence of the "War on Terrorism". It is not a fight against Moslems, it is a fight against Vandals. People who hate and fear technology beyond the 6th Century, often but not exclusively religious fanatics. Those who stand for every abhorrent thing: murder, torture, mutilation, slavery, ignorance, pestilence, racism, sexism, you name it.
People utterly blinded by hate. And it doesn't matter what tome they swear compels them to kill and destroy, or the priest of whatever stripe that motives them. They ARE the enemy, deserving of less sympathy then a rabid dog.
It has long been a luxury to ignore such people. To allow them to live and die in their stinking backwaters. But there can be no pity for those who would force others to cling to ignorance and poverty and vileness by destroying civilization.
The peasants of the world must adapt to, or at least accept, change and modernity. Their only other alternative is obliteration.
posted by kablam at 7:48 PM on September 7, 2003
« Older Soundless Music Shown to Produce Weird Sensations | Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:41 PM on September 7, 2003