1 - How powerful do the inordinately rich have to be for their power to become inordinate? They finance, lobby, and pressure politicians and the media. They have direct contacts with the intelligence and defence community. They can raid the treasury and the environment and fire workers to increase their profits while the country is purportedly at war. Doesn't all this that they can get away with not reflect "inordinate power"?
mbs: No, because all the things you cite are perceived as business as usual. Perpetrating explicitly illegal, violent crimes against citizens is an overtly delegitimizing act. It would require a much higher -- "inordinate," if you will -- degree of internal coordination and secrecy.
HA: 2 - Can you give any examples of events that I have referred to re Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and the US demonization of Gaddafi, which you would qualify as artifacts?
mbs: not sure what you mean, but all of these have simple explanations. The trigger for Afghan is the response to 9/11. Doesn't mean there are ancillary motives and interests. The trigger for the Gulf War was the invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps the elder Bushies gulled Saddam into thinking he would have a cakewalk so they could ream him, but so what? He still invaded, and that was the excuse.
HA: 3 - When you compare my reading of the Afghan war and, e.g. Carrol's, my conclusions are quite clear and straightforward: The US threatened a war if the Taliban wouldn't deal, it made good its threat, and the reason is oil. Carrol says there's no way of knowing why the US is doing what it's doing. Which of these analyses leads to greater confusion and resignation? Hakki
mbs: maybe they did threaten because of oil. that doesn't mean 9/11 orignated anywhere else but in OBL's fevered mind, nor that he deserves to live.