Dr. Weevil: The Weblog Dr. Weevil: The Weblog

Powered by WordPress

Saturday: July 8, 2006

Ignorance Unashamed

Filed under: — site admin @ 10:04 PM UTC

Thomas Nadelhoffer (one of Brian Leiter’s interchangeable gnoams) writes:

If America were actually struggling to help spread democracy and political freedom throughout the world–rather than trying to set up puppet regimes that better serve corporate interests–many of the very people who get dismissed as anti-American would be on board so long as we were going about it in a peaceful manner. But as Chomsky himself points out, it is worth asking whether we would be in Iraq right now if their chief exports were “lettuce and pickles” rather than crude oil. The answer to anyone who happens to prefer honesty to make-believe is obviously “no” (think North Korea), but to merely pose the question is to be dismissed tout court as anti-American.

Perhaps the answer would be less obvious if the asker did not restrict his comparative study to two countries. Republican presidents have invaded more countries than just Iraq in the last few decades, and have failed to invade more countries that deserved it than just North Korea. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Nadelhoffer – or to Chomsky, for that matter – that Reagan invaded liberated Grenada, whose principal exports* are “bananas, cocoa, nutmeg, fruit and vegetables, clothing, mace”. (The last refers to the spice, not the crowd-control chemical.) Of these, the only ones for which Grenada controls much of the market are nutmeg and mace, two products of the same tree. I would hate to have to make my Christmas eggnogs and Walter Mondale memorial quiches without nutmeg, but it is far less important to the U.S. economy than “lettuce and pickles”. The fact that Reagan invaded liberated Grenada anyway should offer a clue to the clueless, but it probably won’t.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

*Yeah, that’s from the CIA Factbook, and, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, “they would say that, wouldn’t they?” Got any evidence that it’s incorrect in any way?

1 Comment

  1. The other weird issue with the argument is that if it was just access to the oil, why wouldn’t we have just struck a sweetheart deal with Hussein? After all, the Left keep telling me that Hussein was “our friend” in the 80s anyway, right?

    That scenario gets “Exxon and Halliburton!!!!” their profits from the sweetheart deal, gets a pile of oil on the market, and doesn’t cause Bush any political troubles at all – in fact, the Left would have been obligated (to avoid hypocrisy, which is evidently the biggest sin in anyone else) to praise Bush for ending the sanctions on Iraq!

    That Bush didn’t take that easy route suggests that maybe oil isn’t what it’s all about – or that he’s simultaneously a supergenius and the stupidest man on Earth.

    Admittedly, that seems to be a common claim.

    Comment by Sigivald — Monday: July 10, 2006 @ 11:34 AM UTC

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.