My good rightwing friend John Pike brought my attention to a jaw-dropping post from Adam Yoshida, who not only thinks the US may end up at war with Venezuela over the latter's oil supplies, he actively advocates coups, assassination and waging war for oil in South America.
It’s not widely known, but the fourth-largest supplier of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States is Venezuela, which, in 2003, provided a total equal to about ¾’s of that provided by Saudi Arabia. A cut-off of oil supplies from that nation would send already-high oil prices into the stratosphere. Worse still: it’s entirely possible that, thanks to an increasingly-close relationship with China, Venezuela’s leftist President, Hugo Chavez, could cut off exports without harming his own domestic economy. In terms of ability and willingness to cause widespread harm to the United States, Chavez may be the single most dangerous enemy that America has today.
So: what is to be done? The coup, of course, has been the traditional American means for getting rid of Latin American leaders who forget their place in the natural order of things. This was already tried against Chavez in the spring of 2002 and horribly botched.
[Snip]
I do have one idea. It’s a simple one: a naval blockade combined with air strikes. If the United States can’t have Venezuelan oil, than no one can. A relatively small force of the US Navy would be fully capable of cutting off any oil shipping on the part of Venezuela. US Aircraft, even tactical aircraft based in the Continental United States, would be able to destroy that nation’s air force and then, thereafter, hit at will targets of opportunity. At the same time, the US could work with other nations in the region to deploy forces in order to effect a regime change. Perhaps we might even manage to develop a made-in-Venezuela solution to the problems.
At the same time we must, of course, look for other options, short of war. In particular, we ought to consider the possibility of covert action. Mr. Chavez appears to be the indispensable man in the regime. His assassination ought to become a paramount objective of covert US policy.
As my co-blogger Mr. M would say, can we now pause for a heartfelt cry of "What the F***K?"
But wait, the ending is the most jaw-dropping expression of far rightwing Imperialistic drivel I have ever seen:
The United States needs oil. The United States is the leading superpower in the world. Any nation which attempts to interfere with the American economy is committing an act of economic warfare against this country. It should be the policy of the United States to respond to acts of overt economic warfare with acts of physical warfare. Any nation which attempts to withhold its resources from the United States for the purpose of sabotaging the American economy should be attacked and forced to acknowledge its inferior position.
All boldfaced type is mine, by the way. Mr. Yoshida obviously doesn't feel his insanity is so out beyond the realms of normal as to require boldface. If you have to have the many reasons his rant comprises insanity explained to you, you should probably join him in a padded room. However, feel free to comment on the computer the nice nurses let you have once a week and I will explain them all to you...slowly.
6 comments:
Hi John,
"Adam is a bit of a flame-thrower" - you can say that again!
I agree with you that war for oil is a fact. It even makes sense in a realpolitik sense, once all other options have been exhausted. My objections to Yoshida's stance are really more that he does not advocate trade or diplomacy or even that the US act semi-civilised. He instead advocates the worst kind of Imperialism including coups, assassinations and airstrikes, purely on the basis that the US can therefore it should. The last sentence, I am afraid, is why the Pax Americana was never a realistic option. Hearing people like Yoshida and PNAC (who are worse because they have so many members in the administration), other nations will immediately assume that America as a whole may well hold this viewpoint and take steps to ensure they are no longer "inferior" and the US is no longer the sole superpower. That's realpolitiks too.
Regards, C
PS: Yoshida at least has found the only logical out to the "logic trap" in my last post - if the US is not concerned with human rights and dignity then it is logical to not listen to other nation's opinions on the same.
Cernig,
I found another way out of the logic trap.. I posted it in the comments section. nyah nyah ;) I have to admit I couldn't come up with it, though. That was a tough one.
As for this Yoshida guy... wow. This is the same logic the Japanese used before Pearl Harbor... Yoshida is a nutball, I think. I mean that post was disgusting.
I disagree with we've always fought and always will fight for oil. The fact is we have NOT fought for oil thousands of times... it just doesn't 'count' for some reason. Name an oil well in a country we haven't invaded and colonized- there's an instance of us not going to war for oil. It's that simple. And we didn't go into Iraq for oil either.
It is like the liberal lie mantra blood-for-oil blood-for-oil invaded Yoshida, seduced him, and now he's agreeing with it! But it is and always was crap.
Cheers!
Hark
Harky, "war for oil" or "blood for oil" may be a bit of a dramatic way of putting it, but I think we can all agree that the Middle East is only important because they have oil.
Vast deserts, authoritarian misogynists, religious zealots: if it weren't for the oil, the Middle East would barely register in most American's minds. It would pretty much be, "Jesus came from around there, right?"
So yeah, our Middle East entanglements are about oil. It is imperative to our economy and our national security that we have access to oil. We have and will again go to war to protect the flow of oil.
Sham,
You forgot one thing. A lot of liberals forget it.
Cheers!
Hark
Hi Harky,
Name an oil well in a country we haven't invaded and colonized- there's an instance of us not going to war for oilI think you are trying to prove a negative. It helps see this if you take it to a ridiculous extreme.
Name a country in Europe that Hitler didnt invade and colonized- there's an instance of Hitler not going to war to conquer EuropeUmm...Spain, Switzerland.
See what I mean?
Regards, C
C,
I'm not TRYING to prove a negative, I proved it. hehehe.
um... can u tell me what that ONE THING is, C? A reason we might invade their, OTHER than oil?
Cheer!
Hark
Post a Comment