|| From: Max Sawicky
|| 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.
||
OK now I see. Well I would counter your "it can't happen because it would delegitimize" with "it always happens but it doesn't delegitimize". Why? Because the Gulf of Tonkin, the provocations leading to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the trap set for Iraq, these were all executed by a small group, although the policy goals were based on a wide consensus. Therefore the secret did not get out and what leaks occurred were not sufficient to discredit a US government legitimized by the symbols of freedom and democracy. Precisely the same thing is happening now, there are leaks of CIA-ObL collusion, of the US threatening war before S11, etc. None of this can penetrate the patriotic frenzy whipped up by the terror attack. The truth comes out after 20 years and the US is revealed as the aggressor in Vietnam. Does anybody care? I'm sure that the mechanisms of manipulation and persuasion I am hinting at here have been thoroughly studied by those who plan these covert operations.
|| 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.
||
But aren't these "triggers" the artefacts? The same strategic goals can theoretically be achieved using different triggers. What counts are the goals, which are the true causes of these wars, and which can be somewhat crudely (no pun intended) reduced to one word: oil.
|| 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.
|| What does that have to do with political usefulness? ObL is bad, sure, but so are the Saudis, so is Pakistan. How is killing a bit player going to help the left, as opposed to laying open the imperialist web of deceit that unleashed Wahhabite terrorism on the world and is protecting its main instigators now?
Hakki