Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so far, chomsky seems to have been pretty much on target, yes?
i do not agree with his assessment of the reasons for war--i do not think oil was a primary motivation for it--rather it was more geopolitical (unilateral american action as over against the united nations--iraq made sense as a target because of the first iraq war)...
the "discussion" of chomsky above is quite old and seems not to be terribly interesting in the main.
kinda iwsh i had been playing around here when it was posted, however: it could have been a fun debate. maybe it will be now.
|
Roachboy, I disagree with your assessment of Chomsky's points in regard to the "reasons" for the war.
I read his statement to say that we have interests in that regard, but they don't explain why we actually went to war. I hinge that on his statement that those interests don't explain the timing.
So I interpret his position as control over oil resources is a benefit derived from when we establish ourselves in Iraq, including military bases, but that is by no means a "primary motivation." I think he would agree with you that geopolitics drove our decisions to war. But I wonder if he would argue that geopolitics are driven by oil interests. Well, perhaps limited resources in general, but oil being a resource of much importance as various nation-states' economies became integrally linked with the production and control of oil.
I guess my nutshell question is how do you de-link interest in oil from the modern geopolitical context?