Thread: US imperial system in the Middle East

On a note of the speech he actually got me looking into the whole Saddam peace offer in the first gulf war thing. Which was suprisingly full of crap.

I say surprising because usually Comsky is just putting his spin on things. He could find class warfare in a birthday party if he felt inclined to. But usually he's fairly factual, and the only freakish part is when he pretends various dictorial regimes and wonderful so long as they don't like the US and calls totalitarian communists states "successful independent development".

Now, Iraq did put out "peace" offers where he'd get to keep stuff. However there wasn't a need for a peace offer on his part. The UN Security council document authorizing war gave him about a month and a half to get out of Kuwait. This wasn't like in Gulf II or Afganistan where in principle the governments might have had a hard time meeting all demands immediately. In the first war all he had to do was have his forces leave in time. Instead he hunkered down and all indications I can find are that he though the US was too cowed by vietnam to actually try it and stick with a war.

Originally Posted by Horhey

And no. They dont say it's "speculation." They say "those who say it's not about oil arent reading Wikileaks." "It is all about oil." If this was about an official enemy, you would not hesitate to perceive the obvious.

That's just their general statement at the end, about everything on the planet it seems. Try the section where they're talking about the actual content.

Now to be fair I do think our country remembers where oil is. And I think geopolitical factors influence when we'd like to get more involved and when countries actually do so. I just think you're moving priorities around.

On the subject of the Total thing, that's actually more interesting, though that's the French. And I'd be much more interested in what actually happened company wise than photo's of supposed documents. Although even then, there is cause that if you're going to get inovlved you might want to try and get a sweet deal, but a primary oil motive driven by a particular company is something the French ought seriously think about.

Originally Posted by RedRepublic

This is the repeating pattern:
Popular leftist leader/group in foreign country gains political influence, usually through representative democracy
When they threaten the status quo of imperialist exploitation and looting, the US gets concerned
CIA uses sabotage, torture, violence, - pretty much whatever it takes - and with the help of giant corperations and the country's military overthrows the government. They install a "business-friendly" dictator and help to set up their secret police network and institutions of repression
Dictator gains more and more influence, then finally decides to cut ties with the US for their own gain
The mainstream media has a miraculous (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amnesia and forgets that the western governments are the ones who set up the regime, suddenly they are repressive dictatorships and not a "valued ally"

Just to get a feel for who I'm talking to, how warm and cuddly do you find the USSR? Do you think that if the US had just been nicer, the USSR would not have rolled tanks into neighboring countries?

We played harder than people would have liked during the cold war. And we did have some guys that were "our bastards". Still a bit of that lingering, especially in the middle east.

In any case, if somebody goes crazy than you've got to deal with the situation as it is.

Originally Posted by sunnyside

On a note of the speech he actually got me looking into the whole Saddam peace offer in the first gulf war thing. Which was suprisingly full of crap.

I say surprising because usually Comsky is just putting his spin on things. He could find class warfare in a birthday party if he felt inclined to. But usually he's fairly factual, and the only freakish part is when he pretends various dictorial regimes and wonderful so long as they don't like the US and calls totalitarian communists states "successful independent development".

Now, Iraq did put out "peace" offers where he'd get to keep stuff. However there wasn't a need for a peace offer on his part. The UN Security council document authorizing war gave him about a month and a half to get out of Kuwait. This wasn't like in Gulf II or Afganistan where in principle the governments might have had a hard time meeting all demands immediately. In the first war all he had to do was have his forces leave in time. Instead he hunkered down and all indications I can find are that he though the US was too cowed by vietnam to actually try it and stick with a war.

No, you're wrong.

Now to be fair I do think our country remembers where oil is. And I think geopolitical factors influence when we'd like to get more involved and when countries actually do so. I just think you're moving priorities around.

On the subject of the Total thing, that's actually more interesting, though that's the French. And I'd be much more interested in what actually happened company wise than photo's of supposed documents. Although even then, there is cause that if you're going to get inovlved you might want to try and get a sweet deal, but a primary oil motive driven by a particular company is something the French ought seriously think about.

Nah, every country involved in the war. You didnt read it right.

Just to get a feel for who I'm talking to, how warm and cuddly do you find the USSR? Do you think that if the US had just been nicer, the USSR would not have rolled tanks into neighboring countries?

We played harder than people would have liked during the cold war. And we did have some guys that were "our bastards". Still a bit of that lingering, especially in the middle east.

In any case, if somebody goes crazy than you've got to deal with the situation as it is.

Im really tired of this USSR copout. Millions of people are dead because of this pretext. Moscow said they had to intervene in Eastern Europe to stop the spread of American influence. Nazi Germany said they had to conquer Russia out of self defense. All lies and it's no different for the United States. Empires always claim their actions are defensive. Just as all empires promise to bring freedom to the conquered.

You may have to sell [intervention or other miltary action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has been doing ever since the Truman Doctrine.

--Samuel Huntington, Harvard Government Professor, Foreign Policy Advisor, White House Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council (1977-79)

Originally Posted by Horhey

No, you're wrong.

What are you even proposing that I'm wrong about in there? The UN security council resolution authorizing military force unless Sadam got out of Kuwait by January 15th? That should be pretty easy for you to verify.

Nah, every country involved in the war. You didnt read it right.

I'm operating off of the quote you linked of

NTC document details “the oil accord agreed upon with France in exchange for the recognition of our Council”, which “attributes 35% of (Libya’s) total crude oil (business) to the French in exchange for its total and permanent support of our Council”.

If everybody involved got a cut like that Libya wouldn't have anything left for itself.

Im really tired of this USSR copout. Millions of people are dead because of this pretext. Moscow said they had to intervene in Eastern Europe to stop the spread of American influence. Nazi Germany said they had to conquer Russia out of self defense. All lies and it's no different for the United States. Empires always claim their actions are defensive. Just as all empires promise to bring freedom to the conquered.

Ok, can you not see that you slid into crazy there at the end? Now, I'm not sure if Germany at some point threw something defensive into their rhetoric or if the USSR ever bothered.

But there have been Empires for thousands of years. They are pretty well documented, and typically they didn't need any excuse and were pretty straightforward with their conquering.

Originally Posted by sunnyside

What are you even proposing that I'm wrong about in there? The UN security council resolution authorizing military force unless Sadam got out of Kuwait by January 15th? That should be pretty easy for you to verify.

I already addressed this in the military section.

I'm operating off of the quote you linked of

If everybody involved got a cut like that Libya wouldn't have anything left for itself.

They're all working to get a cut, including the US. From the article:

"European nations, meanwhile, are eyeing U.S. efforts to extend the activity of American companies that has steadily grown in Libya over the past decade."

Ok, can you not see that you slid into crazy there at the end? Now, I'm not sure if Germany at some point threw something defensive into their rhetoric or if the USSR ever bothered.

But there have been Empires for thousands of years. They are pretty well documented, and typically they didn't need any excuse and were pretty straightforward with their conquering.

Adolph Hitler offers pretext for invading Russia

Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.

--Adolph Hitler