I think [a permanent US military presence] would be enormously beneficial to the region, as well as Afghanistan. We've had air bases all over the world. A couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity. ... But I hope they will seek a relationship with the United States of where we can have an enduring relationship, economic and militarily and politically. And a couple of air bases in Afghanistan will give us an edge militarily, give the Afghan security forces an edge militarily, to ensure that country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban, which would be a stabilizing event throughout the whole region.By the by: One of the goals of an imperial system is to keep raw materials and labour costs cheap. Arguing that it doesn't make sense on a cost-benefit analysis basis to invade a country because its resources are so cheap misses this point. Any country that tries to organize against the imperialist system has to be smashed to keep all the other countries' resources cheap and available. Combine this with a military-industrial complex that has a vested interest in justifying its existence by inventing foreign threats and US invasions become all the more explicable.
In case you're particularly obtuse I'll add the explanation that these military adventures are publicly subsidized whereas the oil, minerals, cash crops, sweat-shop labour, corrupt governments who provide open-ended contracts and freedom from legal liability, will all benefit private capitalists. The same thing goes for the war-profiteers. The war is being paid for by tax dollars but private weapons manufacturers (and now mercenaries) are benefiting.
6 comments:
So if it's all about cheap resources, why not invade:
1)Russia
2)Saudi Arabia
3)Iran
4)China
5)Canada
6)Mexico
7) United Arab Emirates
8) Brazil
9) Kuwait
10) Venezuela
The European Union and Norway round out the top 15, with Nigeria at the bottom of the list. If it's cheaper to smack around third world countries on the taxpayers dime, and then let the oil companies move in, why aren't more countries like Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Turkmenistan, and Gabon at the top of the list?
Again, if "big oil" was all about the $$$, why not abandon the US entirely (it's #3 on the list of oil producers) and invest all it's money in Mexico, where presumably, labor costs are cheaper, but the costs of transporting extraction equipment etc is presumably cheaper than transporting it half way across the world to a Middle Eastern nation, with the added bonus of not having to worry about Mexico suddenly nationalizing ones assets in a hissy fit?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
Mark,
I will answer your questions but I must insist that before you ask me to jump through any more hoops that you at least make an effort to concoct a reason why your supposedly not-insane, not-evil US political system advocated, countenanced, and then implemented the mass-murder in Iraq.
Why doesn't the USA invade Russia?
Because Russia can fight back.
Saudi Arabia?
Because Saudi Arabia is already a firm ally that does pretty much all that the USA asks (including giving cover for Israel's abuse of the Muslim-Arab Palestinians by only offering token condemnation of Israeli atrocities).
Saudi Arabia also recycles its petro-dollars by buying over-priced military equipment and US financial products.
Iran?
Iran can fight back. Nowhere near what Russia could do, but it is a harder target to crack than Iraq was. (And Iraq wasn't occupied until after its air defences and infrastructure had been decayed by years of piece-meal air attacks and sanctions.) This is not to say that the USA could not crush Iran easily, just that the USA prefers enemies like a devastated Iraq or Panama or Grenada. Iran is above that league of nations as of yet. But it is being weakened by sanctions and internal subversion.
Speaking of which: You know that the USA overthrew the nascent democracy in Iran under Mossadeq and replaced him with the authoritarian, nut-bar, incompetent, torturing megalomaniac Shah right? And did this with the British in return for British Petroleum giving up its oil monopoly in Iran?
Funny thing that, since oil is so unimportant. Why'd they even think of it at all? You'd think the psychotics in the Eisenhower administration would think that crushing democracy was its own reward!
China?
China can fight back.
Canada?
Canada gave the USA a level of access to its oil reserves that not even Mexico would agree to. There's no need to occupy Canada.
Mexico?
Mexico did nationalize its oil in the post-1945 period, back when the US-led imperialist system had to acquiesce to such things after the European imperialists had been weakened and the USSR served as a source of support for poorer countries trying to recover after centuries of being plundered.
But Mexico is a right-wing ally of the USA and there are probably numerous reasons why the USA hasn't seen the need to invade it.
UAE and Kuwait?
US allies. (Like all the Arab allies of the USA, undemocratic dens of inequality and nepotism.)
Brazil?
Too strong. And, for a long time, clearly a US ally. Former President Lula's disgusting participation in the ongoing rape of Haiti was one of his ways of signalling his continued participation in the US-led world system.
Venezuela?
The USA only instigated a coup and is arming the death-squad narco-state of Colombia (biggest recipient of US aid in the continent and also the worst human-rights abuser) to the teeth and threatening it by proxy.
But then again, there's your non-explanation. That under Clinton, the USA (with the UK) enforced murderous sanctions on Iraq causing 500,000 children under six to die of starvation or easily treated diseases, ... JUST BECAUSE. And then the bush II/Cheney regime invaded Iraq, ... well, no reason really.
Please.
You didn't really answer the second half, and more important part of my question. Why aren't there more third world hell-holes that can be easily pushed around in the top five? The top ten? The top fifteen? I'm sure with a combination of the right equipment and bribes some of these basket cases that produce 200,000 barrels a day could be ramp up production to 1-2 million barrels a day. There wouldn't even be the need to send in the USMC. Panama and Grenada are both nowhere near the top twenty by the way, so I think we can safely rule out oil as the reason for their invasion.
For that matter, about a third of US daily consumption can be met by domestic consumption, and between Canada and Mexico, most of US demand could be met solely through the NAFTA trading bloc.
Colombia is #28 on the list. If it's all about the oil, why isn't it in the top 20, closer to Venezuela in rank??? Talk about a lousy ROI...
I shan't be answering anything else until you propose an explanation for the mass murder in Iraq.
If your country just kills a million people on a whimsy that's even scarier than if it does it for imperialism.
Good night. Happy conjugating.
Post a Comment