Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumReally Funny: Thomas Friedman Is An Enormous Mustache | The Partisan Report
[link:
|xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)geefloyd46
(1,939 posts)I particularly enjoyed his spirited defense in favor of the Iraq war. With him representing the liberal New York times there's not doubt why we have trouble with corporate liberals. I like his spirited defense of other people's boy's and girls kicking in doors in Iraq. How did that work out after all? It's only too bad we couldn't have Tom Walking the point.
Full article here http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/frie-j15.shtml
Thus the liberal war hawk Friedman feels compelled to shore up the flagging credibility of the Bush administrations case for war. Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil? he asks. My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly bein partabout oil. To deny that is laughable.
Friedman admits, quite openly, that the official reasons given by the government for a war against Iraq are lies, and crude ones at that. He writes that Bushs recent attempt to hype the Iraqi threat by saying that an Iraqi attack on Americawhich is most unlikelywould cripple our economy was embarrassing.
He continues: Lets cut the nonsense. The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam [than on North Korea] is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long soughtnot to attack us, but to extend his influence over the worlds largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf.
Thus, having acknowledged that the US government is lying to the American people and the world, Friedman seeks to fashion a new justification for war against Iraq. It is not a matter of self-defense, or even countering something Iraq has done. Rather, the country must be attacked and occupied because the regime mightin the futureextend its influence over the worlds largest oil reserves.
... In other words, the US has the right to wage wars of plunder against those countries that stand in the way of its monopoly of vital natural resources. If, in the process, it violates the national sovereignty of weak and small countries, deprives the local populace of the benefits of resources located on its national soil, and kills untold thousands of peopleso be it.
[link:
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)WCGreen
(45,558 posts)I read a couple of his books back in the 90's and found them trite and full of talk show solutions to major problems...
FarCenter Fan
(19 posts)Douche!
90-percent
(6,828 posts)I find it ironic that almost all American's cannot articulate why we invaded Iraq in the first place.
smoking guns = mushroom clouds
WMD'S
Nerve Gas
Liberating Iraqi's from their evil Dictator
fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here.
hunt down the bastards behind 9-11 and avenge
Suppose we gave a war and nobody knew why we did it - well, that's pretty much the case with Iraq.
Vanity Wars - every Prezdent gets to have one!
-90% Jimmy
PS - I am included in the above mentioned group "almost all Americans". My guess is the war had something to do with the interests of Big Oil?