< < <
Date Index
> > >
Re: Casey struck out again
by Alan Spector
27 October 2001 18:39 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
Making too much out of an individual corporation's interest in a governmental policy  can be a big mistake, I agree. In fact, ironically, the "conspiracy view" which poses as being "the most radical" actually can be a rather conservative argument, where the "villain" is simply one or a few corporations and their political friends, rather than the basic functioning of the capitalist system.  If the bombers were tied to Libya, I suspect that Libya would be the focus, and not Afghanistan. There are oil pipeline interests involved in Central Asia however, so it is not irrelevant to explore possible connections. But the issue is oil profits, not just oil, and Saudi/Persian Gulf oil is very profitiable.
 
Casey did more than just criticize the oil pipeline argument. The most laughable thing he wrote was this:
 
"At the end of day, Ockham's razor still holds, and the best explanation for
most actions is the simplest and most straightforward: the Persian Gulf War
was fought to stop Iraq from gaining control over the vital Persian Gulf
oil, the intervention in Kosova was a long overdue action to put a halt to
genocidal ethnic cleansing in the nations of the former Yugoslavia, and
military action in Afghanistan is an effort to put to an end the serial mass
murders conducted by Al Qaeda, with Taliban support
."
 
-------------------------
As has been stated by many, many others, if the U.S. were motivated by putting an end to serial, mass murders, they would basically have to dismantle their entire political-economic system. The U.S. political-economic system has been and still is currently involved in mass murders far in excess of what AlQaeda and the Taliban have committed. 
 
It was that simplistic, propagandistic, patriotic part of Casey's analysis that "struck out."  
 
 
========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard N Hutchinson" <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Casey struck out again

> Alan-
>
> The point, it seems to me, is that we need to get our facts straight.  If
> the left starts promoting an "oil conspiracy" view that is inaccurate, it
> undermines the credibility of anything else we say.
>
> I don't think most people have a problem understanding the larger issue
> you raise, for instance in the case of the 91 (and continuing) war on
> Iraq, it's not that the U.S. is after Iraq's oil, but rather wants to
> guarantee control over Saudi and Kuwaiti oil.  But of course, many people
> can see that and still think it's totally justified!
>
> I think the Unocal pipeline, and similar notions, appeal because it's
> clearly a private corporation that would profit, and may or may not
> coincide with what someone might call "the national interest."  So it's
> partly an opportunistic type of argument, and people on the left shouldn't
> be making such arguments if they're not grounded in solid fact.  The
> Guardian writer (I forget his name) is more than fair game for Casey.
>
> RH
>
>
< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >