Even More Chomsky

Professor of MIT laying it down:

"2 December 2003
A version of this interview appeared on gulf-news.com as "Of course, it was all about Iraq's resources"
Edited excerpts of an interview with Noam Chomsky by Simon Mars of Dubai's Business Channel.
QUESTION: Do you think control over energy resources was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq?

CHOMSKY: They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course, it was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question. Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. It has the second largest reserves and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence predicts is going to be two-thirds of world resources in coming years.

The invasion of Iraq had a number of motives, and one was to illustrate the new National Security Strategy, which declares that the United States will control the world permanently, by force if necessary, and will eliminate any potential challenge to that domination. It is called "preemptive war." It is not a new policy, it's just never been announced so brazenly, which is why it caused such uproar, including among the foreign policy elite in the United States. They're appalled by it. But, having announced the doctrine, it needed an "exemplary action," to show that the United States really meant it.

But if the United States is going to attack somebody, the action has to meet several criteria. The first and crucial criterion is that they must be completely defenseless. It's stupid to attack anyone who can shoot back. Anyone knows this. They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely defenseless, the weakest country in the region. Its military expenditure was about a third of Kuwait, devastated by sanction, held together by Scotch tape, mostly disarmed, under complete surveillance. So Iraq met that condition."

The rest: monkeyfist.com...

So Chomsky would see the country he lives in and has property in crash and burn so he could preserve a political ideal.

Who is he kidding?

Who are you kidding kitty?

I think its called sacrifing for a higher goal...you know outside the money and material things. As a big proponent of Christian virutes, Neo, I thought you would repect that. Also as a "man" who goes by the signature Neo, "a character that sacrifices everything to save humanity from control!" I also thought it would appeal to you.


My mistake.

There is no friend anywhere, Neo - Lao Tse

It does appeal to me and see we do have common ground.

But lets be brutally frank here, unless someone is willing to really, really suffer for it, I don't care what they rant and rave.

Noam Chomsky makes a whole lot of sense to me. Dunno what else to say other than I didn't disagree with a single part of his assessment in this article.

Originally posted by THENEO
It does appeal to me and see we do have common ground.

But lets be brutally frank here, unless someone is willing to really, really suffer for it, I don't care what they rant and rave.

I also agree with you. Chomsky was targeted by COININTELPRO during the Nixon years. I believe that he faced censure, arrest and "death" threats during that time. While he wasn't "strung to a cross" he does appear to have spent a lifetime dedicated in an ideal which is a lot more than O'Reilly, Hannity or most other political pundits can claim.