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 -----
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
>
>