Chomsky & dangerous wounded predators

[darkbeaver]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded
By Noam Chomsky
The Guardian UK[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Friday 09 March 2007[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources.[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] --------[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] -------[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]​

 

[MikeyDB]

The gluttony of the U.S. engine of greed is prepared to bring the world to war...so long of course as it's only American service people dying in the war-zones created by the American Administration.

It makes perfect sense that Iran or Syria or any number of nations that have been the recipients of the United States of Fascism and Greed "policy' on securing its energy interests regardless of the millions murdered in the name of corporate 'necessity' would plan and perhaps execute covert military actions against the people of the United States. Americans are getting exactly what they want....

 

[jimmoyer]

Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters.
--------------------------------------------Darkbeaver's buddy Chomsky--------------------------------------------------

If a predator becomes more dangerous and less predictable, then why do people
like leaders who screw with that ???


Isn't that what you call stupid ???


Don't you learn this stuff in Kindergarten ??


Where's that CLUE BY FOUR ??

 

[darkbeaver]

Revolutions are like that Jim, look to your own history of revolution and see the future.:wave:

 

[tamarin]

We can attempt to demonize the US all the way to Hell and back but this would be a far more dangerous world without the US in it. What would Russia and China be doing today if the US had no more influence and backbone than France? I know. And so do you. And so does Chomsky.

 

[MikeyDB]

Of course no one needs to demonize the U.S. an objective over-view of historical fact would illuminate the numbers of people killed by greed and the costs in dollars to the world at large that has its genesis at the feet of corporate America.

Would the world be worse off without the U.S.? I'm not convinced. Would the world be a better place for everyone if the wealth of the U.S. instead of being spent on killing people was spent on education, medicine and a thousand other pro-existence issues....? Is there any doubt?

 

[darkbeaver]

We can attempt to demonize the US all the way to Hell and back but this would be a far more dangerous world without the US in it. What would Russia and China be doing today if the US had no more influence and backbone than France? I know. And so do you. And so does Chomsky.

Well Tamarin I don't agree with you, you seem to be unable to objectively examine the crimes of this empire. Certainly those other countrys given unilateral powers would naturally abuse it as the US has so blatantly done. The multilateral spread of power is best for the planet, there is no legal means available to the Americans. They will escalate war, it's thier last card. Russia and China would likely be doing exactly what the US has been doing for five decades, savageing and plundering the planet. Imperialism is like that. If the planet is to survive it must have a ligitamate United Nations, something that was understood a long time ago, but sabotaged at the beginning to accomodate power.:wave:

 

[I think not]

I agree with Chomsky, don't wound them, cut their head off with a knife and show it on youtube.

 

[MikeyDB]

Got my vote ITN

 

[darkbeaver]

Of course no one needs to demonize the U.S. an objective over-view of historical fact would illuminate the numbers of people killed by greed and the costs in dollars to the world at large that has its genesis at the feet of corporate America.

Would the world be worse off without the U.S.? I'm not convinced. Would the world be a better place for everyone if the wealth of the U.S. instead of being spent on killing people was spent on education, medicine and a thousand other pro-existence issues....? Is there any doubt?

Education and health and communication are the backbone of the modern nation state, long ago it was decided by corporate America to subvert them entirely in support of the American mythology necessary to conduct war on a global scale, I doubt that any correction can or will be made in these areas, education is the nemisis of propaganda, propaganda the bulwark of eliteist corporate rule. So if these necessary areas of social responsibility had been addressed according to the will of the majority, the US in it's present predatory form would not have existed. The balance of global poverty and conflict can easily be looped arround the neck of the empire, there is no escape for them excepting annihilation for all, and that is exactly what we're discussing today.

 

[Curiosity]

Hahaha do people still quote Chomsky????

Perhaps the innocent elderly or addicted potheads..... his target audience.... always has been....

He is soooooooooo over.

 

[MikeyDB]

Curiosity

You should let Sanctus and the religious crowd in on exactly when some persons words and writings should be more correctly dismissed...

 

[darkbeaver]

Hahaha do people still quote Chomsky????

Perhaps the innocent elderly or addicted potheads..... his target audience.... always has been....

He is soooooooooo over.

And you are soooooooooooooooo wrong. I'd accept the evidence from any elderly addicted pothead over your's 100 out of 100 times.:laughing7::laughing7:

 

[darkbeaver]

I agree with Chomsky, don't wound them, cut their head off with a knife and show it on youtube.

What's your problem, decapitation works, its effective treatment for a host of ailments.:wave:

 

[MikeyDB]

Hey Beve

What kind of reception do you think Americans would have to seeing Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle and a few other lying theiveing members of the American administration beheaded on CNN?

Seems we've got a few people contributing to these threads that think the American system of jailing more people than any other nation on earth is the way to go.... You can be sent to prison for having a joint or two on your person but you can send off thousands to fight your petroleum wars and that's perfectly OK...

And Americans shout "Hypocrisy"....what a hoot!

 

[Logic 7]

I agree with Chomsky, don't wound them, cut their head off with a knife and show it on youtube.

And you havent learned nothing from iraq war, you still think it is appropriate to attack iran, a nation that hasnt attacked anyone in the last 20 year, the only thing they do( which is good) is to finance Hezbollah.

 

[darkbeaver]

Hey Beve

What kind of reception do you think Americans would have to seeing Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle and a few other lying theiveing members of the American administration beheaded on CNN?

Seems we've got a few people contributing to these threads that think the American system of jailing more people than any other nation on earth is the way to go.... You can be sent to prison for having a joint or two on your person but you can send off thousands to fight your petroleum wars and that's perfectly OK...

And Americans shout "Hypocrisy"....what a hoot!

Id rather see it on AL JAZZ EAR A then I could be sure it wasn't bullexcrement. Cannibis possessshun is a seditious criminal act of treason an unspeakable perversion of American family values but mass murder and the destruction of the planet and near space I might add,are not.
I have a lot to learn Mickey, I'm still just a common malcontent, an enexpensive rabble rebel.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

 

[Curiosity]

Sign of insecurity there - those little emoticons you use as a signature Beav....

You haven't a wave in you - no friendliness or compassion whatsoever - the emoticons are a mask.

 

[MikeyDB]

Curiosity

Do you really think you can form conclusions about how a person feels and who that person might be from the posts contributed here at CC?

Isn't the overarching sentiment the useful metric as opposed to the specific?

I prefer people who champion peace and stability as a general concept as opposed to those who find it convenient to "permit" of exception and exlusivity in the name of nationalism or patriotism or any other rubric that is presented with the intent to legitimize hatred and violence...

I've come to the conclusion that Beve really wants peace and stability in the world...as does Bear and a ITN and yourself....

These kinds of sentiments strike a chord of "approval" in me...and I know that many could care less if they find my approval or not... just as it should be...

It's just talk after all...

 

[jimmoyer]

If Curiosity will permit me ?

Actually Curiosity's very grounded on wanting the same lofty goals of peace
as do all those people you mentioned ---- I can safely assume over time reading her posts.

Let's just all pretend we are beauty Queens and the microphone is in front of us
asking what we wish for the world.

Now watch me strut off the stage.