Interview with the Master

[Plane]

So far, going back over these posts, you haven't laid a glove on Chomsky.  Maybe you'll have better luck with the next batch, but I have to go get breakfast and other stuff.  We'll have to see later.

I thought I decimated him , especially on the "controll of Oil" idea ,why would we spend anything to get controll of oil when we already controll the sea?

His main mistake is to look so deep into his own speculation that he looks past evidence of the truth that is not covered up at all.

[sirs]

I thought I decimated him , especially on the "controll of Oil" idea ,why would we spend anything to get controll of oil when we already controll the sea?  His main mistake is to look so deep into his own speculation that he looks past evidence of the truth that is not covered up at all.

Didn't you get the memo Plane?  Lack of proof is proof positive.  It demonstrates how effective the cover-up is   

[Plane]

I thought I decimated him , especially on the "controll of Oil" idea ,why would we spend anything to get controll of oil when we already controll the sea?  His main mistake is to look so deep into his own speculation that he looks past evidence of the truth that is not covered up at all.

Didn't you get the memo Plane?  Lack of proof is proof positive.  It demonstrates how effective the cover-up is   

I don't know , but the willingness to accept unsuportable speculation rather than Whitehouse statements that are realistic is a measure of the  distrust being carried.

[sirs]

...the willingness to accept unsuportable speculation rather than Whitehouse statements that are realistic is a measure of the  distrust being carried.

Well deduced.  Fits the template nicely

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't know , but the willingness to accept unsuportable speculation rather than Whitehouse statements that are realistic is a measure of the  distrust being carried.>>

You seem surprised that statements from this particular White House are distrusted.  Why is that?

[Michael Tee]

<<China's economy is less dependant on the US than Europes?>>

I think Chomsky's point was that China was not going to be intimidated by America to the same degree that Europe was.  The intimidation was not defined, and probably would include all means of intimidation, military, and political as well as economic.

In answer to your question, I would say, in the long run, and maybe even in the short run, China's economy is MUCH LESS dependant on that U.S. than Europe's, if only because of the huge size and relative underdevelopment of the Chinese domestic market.

[Michael Tee]

<<I thought I decimated him , especially on the "controll of Oil" idea ,why would we spend anything to get controll of oil when we already controll the sea?>>

I'd first of all take issue with the word "especially" which implies that on other points than control of oil, you had also scored on Chomsky.  Fact is, on any point that you addressed and that I responded to, you did not even come close to laying a glove on the man.  I won't comment on posts of yours (if there are still any) that I have not yet responded to.

I will agree however that your strongest argument so far has been on the issue of control of oil.

Historically, the Western powers (Britain in particular) have invaded Middle East oil producers, including both Iran and Iraq, and taken direct control of the oil wells.  Of course, oil was just as much a commodity then as it is now.  What was the point of the historical invasions and occupations?  Were they mistaken?  When the oil wells in Iran were nationalized by the Mossadegh government, did the English and Americans adopt your POV that the oil would be sold at auction eventually so it didn't matter who owned the wells?  Hell, no!  They took immediate action to reverse the nationalization.  Obviously to the people who plan the policies of the U.S. and the U.K., it DOES appear from a study of their history that they DO believe it is necessary to control the oil at its source and not to wait till it gets on the high seas where they can bid for it like any other poor schmuck with a ticket to the auction.

The oil doesn't jump up out of the ground by itself.  People have to find its exact location, sink wells, pump it out.  As you know, foreign oil firms line up to compete for the rights to do these things.  They don't go to Exxon to ask for the right, they don't go to Donald Trump: they go to the government of Iraq.  And the government of Iraq determines WHO is gonna get the right to explore, to sink the wells, and how much they will pay for the privilege.  THAT is control.  And whoever controls the government of Iraq controls who gets to explore for oil there and who gets to sink the wells and how much they'll pay for the privilege.

All your bullshit about oil being sold at auction doesn't even address the issue.  It should be plain without argument that the government of an oil-rich country wields enormous economic power (such as the power to make the decisions I've just referred to) and that power like that is attractive to a country like the U.S.A., which is not only a major consumer of oil itself but a deadly economic rival of other giant oil-consumers, some of them much more dependent than the U.S. on Mid-East oil.

Another power that goes along with control of an oil field is the power to determine how much oil will be produced at any particular time.  That is to say, whether the wells will be run at full productive capacity or not.  This has been a hotly-debated subject at many OPEC meetings.  It is an attempt to fix the price of oil and adjust levels of supply.  The significance of these decisions is self-apparent, which is why they are so closely covered in the business media when they are being made.  Control of the Iraqi and Iranian wells would give the U.S. a decisive voice in these deliberations.

Arguing that there is no benefit to the U.S. in securing control of Mid-East oil fields, specifically Iraq's and Iran's, is like arguing for a flat earth.  It's just silly.

<<His main mistake is to look so deep into his own speculation that he looks past evidence of the truth that is not covered up at all.>>

I think on the whole, as I've pointed out here, what Chomsky says, he backs up with evidence where evidence is available, and where none is available, he admits freely he is speculating, as for example where he was not sure of the real reason for the U.S. government's continuing to deny the popular wish for better relations with Cuba and advances the Florida vote only as a possible explanation.  In terms of control of the oil supply, it is you who advance your position only with speculation (that oil is sold at auction is immaterial, if it were sold in retail stores the same possibilities for purchase and sale would still be present) and no evidence other than the self-serving denials of Bush and his gang.

[Plane]

<<I thought I decimated him , especially on the "controll of Oil" idea ,why would we spend anything to get controll of oil when we already controll the sea?>>

I'd first of all take issue with the word "especially" which implies that on other points than control of oil, you had also scored on Chomsky.  Fact is, on any point that you addressed and that I responded to, you did not even come close to laying a glove on the man.  I won't comment on posts of yours (if there are still any) that I have not yet responded to.

   Don't blame me ,I tryed to make it clear.

     It is very important to have a Democratic government in Iraq , nothing elese can legitamately be delt with.

      That the Earth has curvature can be proven cause it is, that the US benefits from Iriqui oil can't be proven cause we don't.
            Not more than Europe or China does anyway.

          Chomsky was very kind ot refute himself several times , if the benefit of companys "Bush's only constituncy" is the reason for invading Iraq, how is the desire of compays unimportant in the continueing sanction of Cuba?

        IN the Case of Cuba his theroy is that the State controlls the business but in his theroy of Iraq his theroy is that Business controlls the state , neither being the truth  to me ,I can see the inconsistancy more easily than he .

[Michael Tee]

<< It is very important to have a Democratic government in Iraq , nothing elese can legitamately be delt with.>>

Why?

<<That the Earth has curvature can be proven cause it is, that the US benefits from Iriqui oil can't be proven cause we don't.   Not more than Europe or China does anyway.>>

The U.S. doesn't USE Iraqi oil.  It's oil comes from other sources.  But Chomsky does not say that the U.S. needs to have Iraqi oil.  He says the U.S. needs to CONTROL Iraqi oil (i.e. make sure its rivals get it on U.S. terms, make sure that it's released into or withheld from the marked as and when the release or withholding would benefit the U.S.)

<<Chomsky was very kind ot refute himself several times , if the benefit of companys "Bush's only constituncy" is the reason for invading Iraq, how is the desire of compays unimportant in the continueing sanction of Cuba?>>

First of all, Chomsky did NOT say that corporations were Bush's ONLY constituency; this is what he DID say, and in reference to the Kyoto Accords, not the Iraq war:   <<Popular support for alternative energy has been very high for years. But it harms corporate profits. After all, that's the Administration's constituency. >>

Of course, corporate America is very high on the list of Bush's constituents.  That doesn't mean they get every single thing they want and it does not mean that they rank all of their own wants and needs equally.  Trade with Cuba would probably rank very low on a corporate list of priorities; control of Mid-East oil, very high.  So it's quite conceivable that Bush would override whatever corporate pressure exists on Cuban relations while at the same time zealously serving corporate interests regarding Mid-East oil.

Your "argument" that if Bush follows a corporate agenda on Mid-East oil, he must necessarily follow one on all other issues, Cuba included, is foolish, childish and demonstrates an inability to rank things in proportion to their importance, which IMHO accounts for a great many of your flawed opinions.  You show little ability to appreciate nuance and distinctions.  Your belief that Chomsky has contradicted himself by showing where Bush has followed a corporate agenda for Iraq but not for Cuba is, simply, ridiculous.

<<I can see the inconsistancy more easily than he>>

Apparently not.  As I have demonstrated, there is no inconsistency.  Actually, you manufactured the inconsistency by misrepresenting what Chomsky said.  You added the word "only" to make it look as if Chomsky had claimed business was Bush's only constituency, which then permitted you to "see" the "inconsistency."  As usual, you are only deluding yourself.

[Plane]

<< It is very important to have a Democratic government in Iraq , nothing elese can legitamately be delt with.>>

Why?

<<That the Earth has curvature can be proven cause it is, that the US benefits from Iriqui oil can't be proven cause we don't.   Not more than Europe or China does anyway.>>

[size=12pt]The U.S. doesn't USE Iraqi oil. [/size]  It's oil comes from other sources.  But Chomsky does not say that the U.S. needs to have Iraqi oil.  He says the U.S. needs to CONTROL Iraqi oil (i.e. make sure its rivals get it on U.S. terms, make sure that it's released into or withheld from the marked as and when the release or withholding would benefit the U.S.)

<<Chomsky was very kind ot refute himself several times , if the benefit of companys "Bush's only constituncy" is the reason for invading Iraq, how is the desire of compays unimportant in the continueing sanction of Cuba?>>

First of all, Chomsky did NOT say that corporations were Bush's ONLY constituency; this is what he DID say, and in reference to the Kyoto Accords, not the Iraq war:   <<Popular support for alternative energy has been very high for years. But it harms corporate profits. After all, that's the Administration's constituency. >>

Of course, corporate America is very high on the list of Bush's constituents.  [size=12pt]That doesn't mean they get every single thing they want and it does not mean that they rank all of their own wants and needs equally.[/size]  Trade with [size=12pt]Cuba would probably rank very low[/size] on a corporate list of priorities; [size=12pt]control of Mid-East oil, very high[/size].  So it's quite conceivable that Bush would override whatever corporate pressure exists on Cuban relations while at the same time zealously serving corporate interests regarding Mid-East oil.

Your "argument" that if Bush follows a corporate agenda on Mid-East oil, he must necessarily follow one on all other issues, Cuba included, is foolish, childish and demonstrates an inability to rank things in proportion to their importance, which IMHO accounts for a great many of your flawed opinions.  You show little ability to appreciate nuance and distinctions.  Your belief that Chomsky has contradicted himself by showing where Bush has followed a corporate agenda for Iraq but not for Cuba is, simply, ridiculous.

<<I can see the inconsistancy more easily than he>>

Apparently not.  As I have demonstrated, there is no inconsistency.  Actually, you manufactured the inconsistency by misrepresenting what Chomsky said.  You added the word "only" to make it look as if Chomsky had claimed business was Bush's only constituency, which then permitted you to "see" the "inconsistency."  As usual, you are only deluding yourself.




[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


If the US does not use Iriqui Oil why is the priority of controll for it very high?

We would definately use Cuban sugar, and the reduction of sugar cost might be very good for food and beverage industries .

    Our need for controll of oil ,as far as antagonists getting it, is an accomplishment of WWII ever sinse then the open seas have been patrolled by the USN and all skys by the USAF. In time of War our enemys can depend on running short of oil quickly , even Iran or China would. So there is no reason to think that "controll' of oil would be anything like a high priority .

    The establishment of democracy is a very high priority , Mr Chomsky's dismissal of it as a priority at all prevents him from understanding the situation .

[Michael Tee]

<<If the US does not use Iriqui Oil why is the priority of controll for it very high?>>

Because some of its rivals are much more dependent on it.  Japan, for example.  Because the consumption of oil is going to skyrocket as the Indian and Chinese economies grow into their natural sizes and they too, as economic rivals of the U.S.A., will need that stuff.  Because as the global need for oil expands, everybody will need all they can get and sources like the Mid-East, currently not a large portion of the U.S. imports, will become increasingly more important.

<<We would definately use Cuban sugar, and the reduction of sugar cost might be very good for food and beverage industries .>>

I don't know if that's true or not.  There's a substantial potential in the U.S. for growing both sugar cane and sugar beets, although I don't know to what extent that is actualized at present.  In any event, let me know when the clout of your food and beverage industries reaches the level of clout of your energy and transportation industries.  Also when the need for sugar in the food and bev industries reaches the level of the need for oil in your transportation industry.

<<Our need for controll of oil ,as far as antagonists getting it, is an accomplishment of WWII ever sinse then the open seas have been patrolled by the USN and all skys by the USAF. In time of War our enemys can depend on running short of oil quickly , even Iran or China would. So there is no reason to think that "controll' of oil would be anything like a high priority . >>

I wasn't and Chomsky wasn't referring to the need to control oil in time of war.  The obvious connotation of the Chomsky article is control of oil in economic contests.  It's inconceivable that in peacetime, the U.S. Navy would interdict oil shipments to India and/or China.  That would be like declaring war on them.  Furthermore, if you read the article, you will see that Chomsky gives another reason for blockading or making war on Iran (and Iraq) having nothing to do with oil, and that is the Mafia idea of punishment of disobedient satellites.  Countries that think they can suddenly take an independent stance in their foreign policies after years or decades of subservience to the U.S.A. or another Western power are a direct threat to the world dominance that the U.S. would like to establish.  These countries must be taught a lesson.  The disobedience of Iran is clear - - they threw off the tyrannical Shah, whom the "democratic, freedom-loving" U.S.A. had forced upon them and from then to now have shown their hatred of their former oppressors, and struck out on an independent path.  This cannot be permitted to continue.  The U.S. first convinced Saddam Hussein, their then loyal satrap, to invade Iran, in a disastrous war that took a million lives, and has been trying to undermine the Islamic Republic ever since.  This goes beyond oil - - it is disobedience from a bunch of olive-skinned infidels which must be crushed out forever, lest others take up the example.

<<The establishment of democracy is a very high priority . . .>>

Why?  Because you say it is?  Because your "President" after first claiming the non-existent "danger" of WMD was a very high priority, now claims that the establishment of democracy is the new "very high priority?"  That is pure bullshit.  It is not a priority of any level in Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia but suddenly (after the failure to find any WMD in Iraq) it suddenly becomes, in Iraq only,  a "very high priority?"  The "concern" of the Bush administration for "democracy" in Iraq is bullshit and obvious bullshit at that.  It goes against all recent history and all common sense.  I really can't see how any intelligent observer of the facts can even consider the possibility that Bush and his associates have even a shred of concern for "democracy" in Iraq, in fact I am positive that alone amongst themselves, they would laugh themselves silly over the idea of any poor sucker being dumb enough to believe their crude lies about "democracy" in Iraq.

<<Mr Chomsky's dismissal of it as a priority at all prevents him from understanding the situation .>>

He understands the situation perfectly.  He dismisses it becuase he knows it doesn't fit with any other action of the U.S.A. anywhere else in the Middle East or in the world.  Chomsky takes the trouble to show in detail the absurdity of the Bush administration claiming to support "democracy" in Iraq when they won't tolerate the results of it in either Palestine or Lebanon or Venezueala.  Here's a quote from the article: 

<<In fact, if you look at our policies they're the opposite. Take Palestine. There was a free election in Palestine, but it came out the wrong way. So instantly, the United States and Israel with Europe tagging along, moved to punish the Palestinian people, and punish them harshly, because they voted the wrong way in a free election. That's accepted here in the West as perfectly normal. That illustrates the deep hatred and contempt for democracy among western elites, so deep-seated they can't even perceive it when it's in front of their eyes. You punish people severely if they vote the wrong way in a free election. There's a pretext for that too, repeated every day: Hamas must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements. Try to find a mention of the fact that the United States and Israel reject all three of those. They obviously don't recognize Palestine, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it -- in fact they insist on it -- and they don't accept past agreements, including the road map. >>

To claim that the U.S. - - which supports virtually every dictatorship in the region with the exception of Iran, a country which DOES hold relatively free elections compared to the U.S. supported regimes  - - pursues a democratic policy in Iraq while it supports undemocratic regimes everywhere else is simply to deny reality and common sense.

[Plane]

"It's inconceivable that in peacetime, the U.S. Navy would interdict oil shipments to India and/or China.  That would be like declaring war on them."


Yes ,cutting off the oil is like grabbing the throat, in what way is cutting off the oil "conceveable " otherwise?

You do not understand that you contradict yourself in this ?

"Controll " in a wartime sense we absolutely have already , controll in a non wartime sense can't be had.

This idea is foundational to Chomskys theisis but is so self contradictory that it is the ruin of all the rest.




Establishing Democracy does not mean that we promise to treat every democratic state as a freind , in order of priority I would place freindlyness higher than democracy , were it not so we could only be freinds with countrys that met our standards.

If we are ever attacked by a democracy we will fight just the same , there is hope though in that more democratic regimes tend to be more responsive to their people and the common man has to be persueded that a war is good , not always easy to do.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes ,cutting off the oil is like grabbing the throat>>

Fuck grabbing the throat, in plain English it's an act of war for America to intercept a cargo of oil enroute from a Mideast seller to a Chinese or Indian buyer.  In other words, if America does not control the sources of Mideast oil on the ground, the only control she can exercise over her rivals' ability to procure adequate stocks of oil would be by committing an act of war, something which could prove unacceptably costly.  With forces on teh ground controlling the Iraqi government and its policies, the ability to choke a competitor without having to go to war over it is in their hands.

<< in what way is cutting off the oil "conceveable " otherwise. >>

In many ways.  In controlling the local oil-producing governments and taking the lion's share of the product for yourself.  Making sure that for every million barrels produced, 950,000 are sold to American and British purchasers and anyone else who manages to get themselves into America's good graces. 

If the Iraqis control the wells, they can sell to the highest bidder, whether or not that leaves enough for the Americans.  They can sell as much as they see fit to the Chinese, Japs and Indians whether or not this is pleasing to the Americans.  They can refuse to sell to the Americans as long as America backs Israel.  They can do what they like with their own oil.  Having troops on the ground in Iraq prevents a lot of this unpleasantness for the Americans.  Things that they don't like to see happening with Iraqi oil just won't happen.  THAT is control.  Control they could exert otherwise  only at the cost of going to war over it.

<< You do not understand that you contradict yourself in this ?>>

There is no contradiction.  You just don't understand.  Read the above, I hope it will straighten you out.  You seem very confused.

[Plane]

<<Yes ,cutting off the oil is like grabbing the throat>>

Fuck grabbing the throat, in plain English it's an act of war for America to intercept a cargo of oil enroute from a Mideast seller to a Chinese or Indian buyer.  In other words, if America does not control the sources of Mideast oil on the ground, the only control she can exercise over her rivals' ability to procure adequate stocks of oil would be by committing an act of war, something which could prove unacceptably costly.  With forces on teh ground controlling the Iraqi government and its policies, the ability to choke a competitor without having to go to war over it is in their hands.

<< in what way is cutting off the oil "conceveable " otherwise. >>

In many ways.  In controlling the local oil-producing governments and taking the lion's share of the product for yourself.  Making sure that for every million barrels produced, 950,000 are sold to American and British purchasers and anyone else who manages to get themselves into America's good graces. 

If the Iraqis control the wells, they can sell to the highest bidder, whether or not that leaves enough for the Americans.  They can sell as much as they see fit to the Chinese, Japs and Indians whether or not this is pleasing to the Americans.  They can refuse to sell to the Americans as long as America backs Israel.  They can do what they like with their own oil.  Having troops on the ground in Iraq prevents a lot of this unpleasantness for the Americans.  Things that they don't like to see happening with Iraqi oil just won't happen.  THAT is control.  Control they could exert otherwise  only at the cost of going to war over it.

<< You do not understand that you contradict yourself in this ?>>

There is no contradiction.  You just don't understand.  Read the above, I hope it will straighten you out.  You seem very confused.

Cutting off oil to a "rival " would be an act of war in any case , are youfamiliar with the Japaneese position at the beginning of WWII?

There are no situations short of war in wich such "controll " would be usefull.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Cutting off oil to a "rival " would be an act of war in any case , are youfamiliar with the Japaneese position at the beginning of WWII?>>

Yes I am.  Roosevelt placed a total embargo on all scrap iron shipments to Japan.  There was no attempt whatsoever to justify this in terms of an international scrap iron supply crisis.  It was a purely punitive measure and it would have justified a Japanese declaration of war (which they did not make.)

The situation would be a lot murkier in the Mid-East.  First of all the U.S. could hide behind the "sovereignty" of the Iraqi or Iranian government.  Secondly, this would not have to be a total embargo - - this could be an allocation of supplies unfavourable to (for example) Japan, but by no means a total embargo, and justification for preferences to other buyers could take hundreds of different forms, each one sufficient to engage a battalion of lawyers for the next hundred years.  Third, if the Chinese were finally moved to extreme measures, they would have to invade the Middle East themselves, a task made all the more difficult by the entrenched positions of the U.S. military.  In reality, this would raise the bar for an invasion quite a few notches; perhaps preventing an invasion in two hypothetical scenarios out of three.

Regardless of what actually transpires, to argue that physical control of the oil fields is not an advantage to the U.S. or anyone else is just plain foolish.  It's a huge advantage and almost everyone realizes that.  In support of the proposition, Chomsky very cleverly (IMHO) quoted Dick Cheney to prove his point.