Jerry Turner,
Pull your head out of your back socket son and grab some fresh air, at
least enough so as to start seeing straight instead of being asphyxiated
by your own stink.
Perhaps the reason why Mr. Chomsky doesn't mention September 11th and
doesn't play upon the lives lost is because that event and the Iraq war
are completely unrelated. In case you've managed to grab a little fresh
air by now - presuming you stilll have the strength left to relax your
sphincter and let some air flow - it was Benladin and his lot that
wreaked havoc upon NYC, not Iraq, "stupid."
One should suppose, using your lack of and disjointed reasoning, that
your household would ground your fourteen year old for life because your
sixteen year old stole the keys to your car and wrecked it. Or maybe
it's just anyone with a genetic tan and dark hair? After all, "they all
look alike to you," anyway, right?
And, presuming you can remember back so recently, it was your mindset
that was crucifying Mr. Clinton for attempting strikes, declaring that
they were intentional distractions from his "domestic" concerns. And you
might also care (probably not) to take a moment to remember that in his
exit briefing to "Mr." Bush, Mr. Clinton warned that the biggest threat
to national security at that time was Benladin and Al Quaeda.
Unfortunately, the new leader of "the free world" chose to dismiss this
advice and declared that a national missile defense system was the
biggest national security priority.
But you'd rather white wash Bush's blunder and declare it as someone
else's fault.
Make up your mind. Or, like the rest of uncivil society on your side of
the fence, is your expectation to have the best of all worlds and leave
reality and truth completely out of your fabricated picture?
What seems extremely obvious is the fact that what you "know" is
relatively little in comparison to what the rest of the world knows.
Todd Swearingen
Jerry Turner wrote:
NOWHERE in Mr. Noam Chomsky post is mentioned that over 2600 AMERICANS lost
their lives and did so on AMERICAN soil!!
IMO you would have to be a total moron to even think that the terrorist
would have been satisfied taking down the WTC! Hell no they would have kept
on killing AMERICANS at every opportunity.
If Clinton would have had the guts to run this country instead of getting
blows jobs in the oval office, 9/11 would have never happened....you know it
and I know it.
Jerry Turner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:44 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid
See also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9394.htm
Terror Attacks Near 3,200 in 2004 Count
----
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9387.htm
It's imperialism, stupid
By Noam Chomsky
07/05/05 "ICH" - - IN his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted
that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war
against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as
anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps
significantly.
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised
official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very
beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand
out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and
threatens the region and indeed the world.
In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq
because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the
"single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister
Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush
received congressional authorisation to resort to force.
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the
invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely
missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted
new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw
aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and
intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful,
extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book
"Hoodwinked."
Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world
that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in
government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public
statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing
Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along
with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the
record of deceit.
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002,
in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence,
made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying
that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure
on the regime."
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo,
has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles.
The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign
meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what
the memo calls a "casus belli."
Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 - 10 tons that
month, according to British government figures. A special "spike"
started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as
everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before
Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.
The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition
planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but
didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners,
invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror."
That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence
agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by
the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's
center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led
invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would
result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal
conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York
Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks
later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the
future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills
and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are
'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in
itself." The willingness of top planners to risk increase of
terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such
outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison
with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy
resources.
Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the
more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the
journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East
"gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European
and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from
the region." If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq,
with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the
heart of the world's major energy supplies, that will enhance
significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals
in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30
years: US-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked
to South and Southeast Asia economies.
It is a rational calculation, on the assumption that human survival
is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power
and wealth. And that is nothing new. These themes resonate through
history. The difference today in this age of nuclear weapons is only
that the stakes are enormously higher.
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the author, most recently, of Hegemony or
Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.
Copyright: . All rights reserved. You may republish under the
following conditions: An active link to the original publication must
be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the
article, including this copyright notice.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
