Interview with the Master

[Plane]

plane, I wanted to thank you for the detailed responses to Chomsky's interview.  You're putting me to shame, because, first of all I have to take off for lunch now, which is long overdue and secondly I won't be able to get back to this anytime soon, maybe not till the week-end.   But I will be coming back to this and I'm not just wandering off somewhere.

I am haveing fun .

Take your time, I need to leave the keyboard now myself.

[Plane]

"And much worse, although Europe can be intimidated by the United States, China can't. It's one of the reasons, the main reasons, why China is considered a threat. We're back to the Mafia principle.
"

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

[Plane]

 

It's perfectly clear why the United States didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. Again, there's overwhelming popular support for signing,..."

Not in the US.

[Plane]

"Popular support for alternative energy has been very high for years. But it harms corporate profits. After all, that's the Administration's constituency."

"And again, the will of the U.S. population and even US business is considered mostly irrelevant." 

Refutes self again......

This is fun , but I gotta go.

[Michael Tee]

Quote (from Chomsky)
"....if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes. "


plane's response:  <<This is not true...but ....
<< This ["It is not a matter of access as people often say. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. " ] is true>>

Actually, Chomsky quotes George Kennan, a pretty high-powered and reputable American statesman, who states that it IS  true, and also quotes Cheney, who perhaps unwittingly and unthinkingly confirmed in his own bumbling way that it is true:

<<Dick Cheney declared in Kazakhstan or somewhere that control over pipeline is a "tool of intimidation and blackmail." When we have control over the pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he pointed out that if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes. >>

<<I love a guy that can refute his own points.   Saves a lot of work for me.>>

I don't think you grasped Chomsky's point.  The reference to sea-borne oil "going anywhere" was in relation to access to oil and Chomsky's reference was to clarify that access to oil could NOT be controlled.  However, the control of the oil before it becomes a saleable commodity - - that's where the veto power over American rivals comes from.  To pump it out or not - - i.e. to increase the world-wide price of oil by tampering with supply quantities or not.  By not pumping out a drop more than America and her friends need and driving up the price for othe consumers, or by allowing enough to be pumped out to satisfy everybody.  That is the question and there is the power.

[Michael Tee]

plane quotes Chomsky:
<<"A very large majority of the U.S. population is in favor of establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and has been for a long time with some fluctuations. And even part of the business world is in favor of it too. But the government won't allow it. It's attributed to the Florida vote but I don't think that's much of an explanation. " >>


plane refutes Chomsky:
<<This author slept through the 2000 election>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You lost me, plane.  Chomsky says that the U.S. government DESPITE the clear will of the American people to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, refuses to do so.  He doesn't seem too sure whether the reason for the government's obstinacy is the Florida vote or not.  In other words, whatever the reason the government has for not establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba (and Chomsky isn't sure what that might be) the government persists in a distinctly unpopular policy despite the wishes of its own people.  Did you deny that?

[Plane]

Quote (from Chomsky)
"....if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes. "


plane's response:  <<This is not true...but ....
<< This ["It is not a matter of access as people often say. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. " ] is true>>

Actually, Chomsky quotes George Kennan, a pretty high-powered and reputable American statesman, who states that it IS  true, and also quotes Cheney, who perhaps unwittingly and unthinkingly confirmed in his own bumbling way that it is true:

<<Dick Cheney declared in Kazakhstan or somewhere that control over pipeline is a "tool of intimidation and blackmail." When we have control over the pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he pointed out that if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes. >>

<<I love a guy that can refute his own points.   Saves a lot of work for me.>>

I don't think you grasped Chomsky's point.  The reference to sea-borne oil "going anywhere" was in relation to access to oil and Chomsky's reference was to clarify that access to oil could NOT be controlled.  However, the control of the oil before it becomes a saleable commodity - - that's where the veto power over American rivals comes from.  To pump it out or not - - i.e. to increase the world-wide price of oil by tampering with supply quantities or not.  By not pumping out a drop more than America and her friends need and driving up the price for othe consumers, or by allowing enough to be pumped out to satisfy everybody.  That is the question and there is the power.

     But you don't need to be there for that, once it is at sea we controll it utterly , there is no defense for a supertanker from the USN , but it is never in our intrest to drive prices up or cut off a customer except in time of war , by acts of war.

      If we were to go to war with China , China would get no oil at all , and this "contoll " is solidly ours , in any other circumstance we really want China to get all the oil it wants.


      It is pretty simple , oil is sold at auction .

      

[Plane]

plane quotes Chomsky:
<<"A very large majority of the U.S. population is in favor of establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and has been for a long time with some fluctuations. And even part of the business world is in favor of it too. But the government won't allow it. It's attributed to the Florida vote but I don't think that's much of an explanation. " >>


plane refutes Chomsky:
<<This author slept through the 2000 election>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You lost me, plane.  Chomsky says that the U.S. government DESPITE the clear will of the American people to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, refuses to do so.  He doesn't seem too sure whether the reason for the government's obstinacy is the Florida vote or not.  In other words, whatever the reason the government has for not establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba (and Chomsky isn't sure what that might be) the government persists in a distinctly unpopular policy despite the wishes of its own people.  Did you deny that?

Of course.

The vote of Floridas Cubans is increaseingly important , why does he wonder about that?

I wouldn't mind a more open policy twards Cuba myself but I am not motivated to vote on the basis of that policy, Six countys in Florida are.

[Michael Tee]

plane quotes Chomsky:

Quote
The godfather [i.e., the U.S. government] does not accept disobedience, even from a small storekeeper who doesn't pay his protection money. You have to have obedience otherwise the idea can spread that you don't have to listen to the orders and it can spread to important places.
 

and plane attempts to refute Chomsky thusly:
<<This explains our treatment of France, Turkey , India ....


<<Wait ,...... no it doesn't.>>

The godfather's harsh punishment of the small storekeepers who don't pay their protection money, who don't knuckle under, explains the treatment of Iran, Iraq, Viet Nam, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and other small countries.  Of course it could not explain the U.S. treatment of France, Turkey and India - - because America is primarily a land of cowards and vultures who will attack only the weak and defenceless.  

Sometimes, rarely, they miscalculate and attack people who can hit back (Viet Nam, Iraq) which leads to a lot of unexpected casualties and then the stubbornness of the American leader presents an embarrassing problem:  they can't pull out like whipped dogs, they can't (because of their fear of casualties) pour in the troops and go all-out for victory, so they content themselves with a coward's war: bombing and shelling civilian areas in the hope of killing the odd "rebel" or "insurgent" in all the carnage; rounding up civilians at random, usually unarmed, taking them prisoner and torturing them to spread fear, but never - - Never!  committing large bodies of men to engage the Resistance head-to-head or secure every street corner of every urban area.  Why not?  Too much exposure.  Too many dead rednecks to account for to the couch-potatoes back home.

[Michael Tee]

<<Of course.

<<The vote of Floridas Cubans is increaseingly important , why does he wonder about that?

<<I wouldn't mind a more open policy twards Cuba myself but I am not motivated to vote on the basis of that policy, Six countys in Florida are.>>

I think the point Chomsky was making was the anti-democratic nature of the U.S. government as illustrated by its persistent refusal to open diplomatic relations with Cuba notwithstanding the wishes of a large majority of the American people.

The Florida vote is one explanation.  Chomsky probably wonders about that because it doesn't explain why Democratic governments never recognized the Castro regime either.  After all the Miami Cubans are not going to vote Democrat.  Ever.  They HATE Democrats.  So if the Dade County vote is the reason, why wouldn't a Democratic President just say, "Fuck these bastards, they'll never vote Democratic in a million years, so why should I deny all those real Americans what they want just to please a mob of coked-out gusano Republicans?"

[Michael Tee]

palne quoting Chomsky: 

<<And again, the will of the U.S. population and even US business is considered mostly irrelevant. Seventy five percent of the population here favors improving relations with Iran, instead of threats. But this is disregarded. We don't have polls from the business world, but it's pretty clear that the energy corporations would be quite happy to be given authorization to go back into Iran instead of leaving all that to their rivals. But the state won't allow it. And it is setting up confrontations right now, very explicitly. Part of the reason is strategic, geo-political, economic, but part of the reason is the mafia complex. They have to be punished for disobeying us. >>

  and plane rebutting Chomsky:

<<Haliburton makes no diffrnce , and neither do the voters of Florida.

plane, I think I already explained at least one reason why you can't take the voters of Florida as the explanation for a Democratic refusal to open relations with the Castro regime, although it MIGHT explain the Republicans' position.  I don't think I get your point about Halliburton, though.  Chomsky gives a couple of reasons why the U.S. might be refusing to improving relations with Iran, again in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the American people.

[Michael Tee]

plane quoting Chomsky:  "Latin America is all moving to the left, from Venezuela to Argentina with rare exceptions, but there's a good left and a bad left. The good left is Garcia and Lula, and then there's the bad left which is Chavez, Morales, maybe Correa. And that's the split. "



plane's comment on the quote:  Great ,....Latin American Countrys commit economic suicide , and it is our fault somehow.

====================================================================
wrong on both counts.  Chomsky doesn't say they're committing economic suicide and there's no evidence that they are.  Just your lone opinion.

Not only are they probably NOT committing economic suicide, but Chomsky did NOT say that the move to the left was America's fault "somehow."  In fact, far from presenting this Latino move to the left as the fault of America, Chomsky presents it as a problem for America (or at least for the ruling class of America) that will have to be solved, i.e., reversed.

[Michael Tee]

<<[Hezbollah is not] a military deterrant [to an Israeli-American invasion of Iran] more like a threat to civilians , the rockets they have are not accurate enough to dependably hit military targets , thus they represent a good reason to invade more than a good reason not to.>>

First of all, Chomsky did not claim that the Hezbollah was a "military" deterrent to an Israeli-American attack on Iran, he just said it was a deterrent.  This means it is something that stands in the way of the Americans and/or Israelis attacking Iran, since any such attack would be countered by a massive rocketing of Israel. 

Incidentally everybody in Israel is either serving in the Army, in the reserves subject to instant call-up, or is over 45 years of age and a veteran of past military service or under 18 years of age and approaching miltary service.  The distinction between a threat to the military and a threat to the civilians is not anywhere near as much of a distinction as you make it out to be.

The reason to invade Iran is oil, not the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The reason to invade Lebanon is to destroy Hezbollah, yes, but only because they consitute, as Chomsky pointed out, a deterrent to the invasion of Iran.

[Plane]

<<[Hezbollah is not] a military deterrant [to an Israeli-American invasion of Iran] more like a threat to civilians , the rockets they have are not accurate enough to dependably hit military targets , thus they represent a good reason to invade more than a good reason not to.>>

First of all, Chomsky did not claim that the Hezbollah was a "military" deterrent to an Israeli-American attack on Iran, he just said it was a deterrent.  This means it is something that stands in the way of the Americans and/or Israelis attacking Iran, since any such attack would be countered by a massive rocketing of Israel. 

Incidentally everybody in Israel is either serving in the Army, in the reserves subject to instant call-up, or is over 45 years of age and a veteran of past military service or under 18 years of age and approaching miltary service.  The distinction between a threat to the military and a threat to the civilians is not anywhere near as much of a distinction as you make it out to be.

The reason to invade Iran is oil, not the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The reason to invade Lebanon is to destroy Hezbollah, yes, but only because they consitute, as Chomsky pointed out, a deterrent to the invasion of Iran.

Not unless not invadeing Iran would prevent a barrage of Rockets .

[Michael Tee]

<<Why peserve an oil feild?

<<Oil Scarcity produces bettr Exxon profits , oops I forgot he is mainaining that it is the State of the US government that decides everything ....so why preserve an oil feild?>>

Chomsky is quite clear about this.  In his view, for geo-political reasons, the U.S. needs control of the oil, not access to it.  Why preserve the oil field?  How the hell can they control something that no longer exists?  Of course they would need to preserve it if they need to control itl

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.