First, imperialism is not an assumption. It is actually a highly documented term to describe what has taken place primarily in Western civilizations over the last 700 or years.

But you raise a point which I’ve been hearing hear on DV. That is why would the “empire” do things against its “interest”? This seems clear when you realize, as I think you’d agree, there is a deep pathology in imperialism. Pathological behaviour stems from desires which begin to be counterproductive to the entity (person, organization, nation-state, etc.). Such pathology is everywhere, particularly geopolitically where powers are clashing over “scarce” resources.

But what I find interesting is that this is so common that I wonder why there is a “need” to find the answer in some other “enemy”? It seems that there is a desire to find a single enemy, a single ideology to explain this behavior. Imperialism could be viewed as that ideology or, say, Zionism. I see Zionism as described today, as a form of imperialism, but I think the root cause is the privatization of the earth and all that surrounds it. The outcomes are genocide, masacures, global economic take overs,etc. As I said before these ideologies which support “ownership” and by that control, are not the cause but the doctrinaire manifestation of that drive.

Again, I would not be so overwrought with rationality which your question implies. Rationalism can exist within the irrational. The USA history is strewn with strands of healthy purpose and pathological acts.

It is “difficult to understand” when you begin with the assumption that the US invaded Iraq purely at the urging of Zionists/AIPAC.

No one, most definitely not me, disagrees that necons were for invading Iraq long before 9/11.

The US invaded Iraq in 1991. It is fair to say that that invasion has been continuous to this day. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did not begin in 2003 because it was never concluded in 1991. We can all speculate on what “really” caused that initial invasion and its continuation throughout the Clinton administration until it was escalated in 2003.

A lot of different factions were long for the invasion of Iraq. “Reasons” may have differed, but there was a convergence on the push to invade.

Now, from my perspective, I do not think that any invasion is justifiable of any place on the planet. Period. So, invading Afghanistan was no more justififed than invading Panama, or Granada, or through proxies in Central America and else where throughout South America or East Timor or Somolia or Yugoslavia/Bosnia. The list goes on and on.

What was behind all of those invasions across the planet perpetrated by the USA? Was it Zionism or AIPAC?

As horrific as that invasion into Iraq has been for the Iraqi people, it is no less so for all of the other places the US has invaded and bombed and otherwise tore apart. These wars are about control.

I see nothing in your argument that demonstrates that the USA has nothing to gain by taking control of the region. Carter’s doctrine is but one doctrine, Reagan had his doctrine, as did Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. The common thread is not zionism but imperialism. How it is achieve is the difference between Scheunemann (McCain and Brzezinski (Obama). The overarching mission is the same; only the operational targets differ.

Exactly correct, Max.

Could it be the same “voices” whose “fundamental policies” existed long before AIPAC or Israel have become AIPAC, Israel and Zionism?

And could the Russians say the same about Bolshevik and Communist “voices?”

All three have condemned Israel with regard to its relationship with the region at large, Palestinians and Lebanon, in particular.

Zinn doesn’t focus on Israel; and Klein is a borrower of ideas. Her book on Shock Treatment was document thoroughly by Greg Grandin in his superb book – Empire’s Workshop, Latin America, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.

Chomsky was once a leading linguist; his interest in US foreign policy goes back at least 40 years. He doesn’t belong to any organized group; he’s a kind of lone-acedemic “wolf”. While he’s condemned Israeli policies, he believes in a two-state solution and he does down play the importance of AIPAC in US foreign policy. I don’t agree with the two state solution; but if the majority of Palestinians support it, who am I to argue. I think AIPAC is a cancer on American polity.

I think Chomsky and I agree that even if Israel and AIPAC have a significant voice in American politics and Middle East policy, the fundamental policies that give AIPAC credence existed long before there was an Israel or AIPAC.

I agree that racism (fear) and ideology can be the narrative which propels war and conflict. But it is not the motive behind it. Zionism is a manifestation of imperialism. Neoconservativism is a manifestation of imperialism as is neo-liberalism.

I would not make “peak oil” as you have, an ideology. “Peak oil” is NOT a counter argument to Zionism. Peak oil is not the reason why we’re in Iraq. Hegemony is all about control of regional and global resources.

Hegemony is, at bottom, the American Global Strategic Policy. On the one hand, there is Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama) and than there is Randy Scheunemann (McCain) – both are American imperialists with slightly different takes on where next. No one would ever call Brzezinski a Zionist (as in Israel first)!

American imperialism is rooted deep from its inception of colonial conquests which follow the same pattern as the colonization of Africa, Asia, the ME and Central and South America. Policy doctrines have been fashioned and updated, all calling for American exceptionalism and expansionism. These set the stage for our policies.

But behind all this is the privitization of natural resources the world-over. That dates back to centuries before the “founding” of the American continent. This is the basis for ALL power and wealth. Doctrines, ideologies, racism play their important bit parts.

While Chomsky or Zinn or Klein hit on these themes and maybe worthy of note but in NO WAY discredit the credibility of this factual history that precedes the existence of USA. Because they are intellectual Jews you see a conspiracy. I say it’s IRRELEVANT!! Why because they’re among many many non-Jews who have provided substantial support for this history.

Max what is limiting are your arguments and your view of politics in the United States which btw has a major effect on the world scene.

You can label it “Imperialism” and “Empire” all you want to in order to obscure the truth but that doesn’t alter how Zionism has become a major driving force behind “Empire” TODAY. Empire and Imperialism do not occur in a vacuum Max. They requires a motivating force.

Your claim is that the motivation behind Imperialism and Empire for all epoch are is the same of which you claim it to be for land and resources. However Max those who FIGHT and DIE in Imperialism’s quest are not necessarily motivated by the same forces that drive the ruling class.

Racism and nationalism however are very powerful forces that can be used to motivate the working class to kill and be killed by each other no less.

But let’s take a step back. Your introduction into this this tread began with this comment…
This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

In my discussion with HR, Israel wasn’t even mention. In fact I don’t think I mention Israel once. What I did mention was that I had doubts about the premise of “Peak Oil” and that the recent rise in gasoline prices is not attributed to raising demand or dwindling supply. Unfortunately Max it was you who got on the defensive about Israel (Zionism) and introduced it into the discussion.

That should come as no surprise when it is clear that your agenda is to obscure, deflect, distort, dismiss, and diffuse the influence that Zionism has in the continuation of Imperialism in the 21st Century. If there is any one who is “obsessed” it is you Max. You are “obsessed” with denial and deflection.

The sooner you get over your obsession the sooner you’ll be able to make sense of our history…perhaps.

Max, at best, you are in severe denial which only goes to prove my point and suspicions about the “Left”. Chomsky is a self described “Libertarian Socialist” who has spent his entire career using his criticism of U.S. policy and sophistry to deflect the problem and power of Zionism within the U.S.

I’m not the only one point this out. You can read critiques from Dr. Petras, Jeffrey Blankfort and others. I even posted a link to a CounterPunch article that clearly questions the “War for Oil” canard that you choose to promote here on DV. So to make it appear that I’m alone in my critique is ridiculous.

Why is Chomsky significant? Because Chomsky provides the gateway and introduction for many people to left-wing politics. Because the “Left” has limited media access Chomsky becomes that beacon where most folks who considered themselves left of the Democrats get much of their information.

In fact listening to Alternative Radio jus this week, David Barsamian, listed among his most important American guests as Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Howard Zinn. How’s that for irony. But what that means is that they REPRESENT the “informed” voice of the Left. The main point for “voters” looking to educate themselves as they move from Liberalism to a more Left-wing ideology will more than likely travel through these gatekeepers.

DB, who is the real obscurist here, you who see a conspiracy by a nameless “left” or those who wish to look squarely at history and piece together a semblance of understanding – that we did not just arrive at this place, but evolved over millenium?

No Max yours is a position of denial especially the denial of racism as it is now constructed in the United States . This is what makes your stance untrustworthy of building the kind of solidarity needed to confront power.

And as for Zionism Max, it didn’t take 1000 years for Zionism to achieve the influence and power that it now has in the United States. How it achieved such heights is that people like you used various kinds of ruses (like using the deflector word “conspiracy”) and sophistry to deflect and diffuse awareness.

The problem with such labels as “Imperialism” is that it is deliberate sophistry intended to conceal the role Zionism played in the War in Iraq. And as I pointed out in my previous post which you chose to ignore is that RACISM has played a common denominator in War and Imperialism.

I’ve made clear my positions on Zionism, Israel, Imperialism, and the USA

Max what you have made clear is your intention to obscure Zionism as a major problem and force in the United States. Zionism is the dominate racist ideology afflicting the United States today and one that you want to at best ignore and at worst obscure.

When you talk about the “left” are you talking about Tom Hayden? Do you think Petras is an American “leftist”. If so, and since you seem to hang on to each and every word he utters, is he a good “leftist”? Is Petras part of the “anti-war” movement? If so, how so?

Do you think that all the protests outside of the Dem and Repub conventioons were blacked due to a “leftist” conspiracy? Do you believe the media is “leftist” as the Repub propaganda would have us believe?

DB, who is the real obscurist here, you who see a conspiracy by a nameless “left” or those who wish to look squarely at history and piece together a semblance of understanding – that we did not just arrive at this place, but evolved over millenium?

Today is the culmination of millions of yesterdays, of choices and decisions.

I’ve made clear my positions on Zionism, Israel, Imperialism, and the USA. To continue to mix those into what appears to be very weak argument – at least as you present it – seems to belie an obscurist agenda. Repeatedly using Chomsky – someone you seem more willing to bring into the discussion – is but a red herring.

I’m saying that the “reason” for war has been the same for EVERY century. The cause(s) of war do not change it’s skin for each century. I also do NOT think that racism is the CAUSE of war; nor ideology (except in the broadest sense of that word). I do not think fascism, communism, or even capitalism per se causes war. I don’t think neconservativism nor neoliberalism per se are the cause but they are tools used to justify the aggressive invasive quest to “own” the world’s resources.

I do think monopolistic economics and a ruling class cause wars. The rest is pretext. I do NOT believe that human beings are innately wired for war. Quite the contrary; but they are wired for security and defense and if those “wires” are charged through messages (propaganda) human beings will respond. This is like our current “food system”. Left to our own we’d eat a healthy well balanced diet. But we are “wired” for fats and sweet flavors to take us through winter months, etc. That “wiring” has allowed our food system monoplist to inject artificial sweetners to increase intake, and thus increase food purchasing.

Over 700 years from the Middle Ages (and before) and on, a hierarchy of power has been built around the privitization of natural resources. Laws hae been carefully and continuously crafted to support this takeover and a legal and police and military system enforces it. There is NO human wealth WITHOUT natural resources. This powerful class has always operated under that basic premise. And it operates today under that premise.

Licening of the commons and technology concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. In order to sustain that grasp and to grow it, wars are waged.

That is the “reason” for ALL wars regardless of ideology or religion. Israel is an imperialistic nation-state. It’s domain is the Middle East. It employs racism and terrorism and whatever else will work to extend its grasp on resource control.

I’ll grant you that oil is a simplistic way to provide casuse for the US invasion of Iraq. It is a short-hand that speaks directly to the centers of power who want to control as much as use resources in that region and elsewhere.

Imperialism is the word used to describe monopolistic and preditory capitalism. If that is broken, if we unleash the monoplistic wealth-making of natural resources in the world and make it accessible to us all, we would end war and poverty.

I don’t know what Chomsky or Noami Klein has to say about this. I don’t much care; though I think they’d find it reasonably compelling. As far as blind spots – in this case, and in my opinion, that’s a specious argument.

Yours is a fanciful world, void of historical facts, I’m afraid.

For the sake of argument lets assume you are right Max and that the reason for war at the turn of the 20th Century is the same as the turn of the 21st Century. Then if we look at the racist aspect of Zionism we see that the War in the Philippines has the same racism attached to it.

Oh but that NOT the conclusion you hope for your readers to draw Max because your agenda is to CONCEAL, OBSCURE, DISTORT, DISTRACT and DIFFUSE any notion that Zionism played any role in the War on Iraq. Your “Peak Oil” ruse is yet another in the long line of ruses coming from the Left in the same vein as Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky.

Since you don’t think the USA is an imperialist empire and that Israel is the (primary if not only) reason we have been fighting wars;

No Max. Your assertion is your consistent distortion and Chomskyesque doublespeak. The real issue which you go to great length to obscure is that Zionism (and its racist aspects) is a MAJOR problem WITHIN the United States. It was the impetus that pushed for the War in Iraq. Why Max do you engage in selective fact selection like ignoring the Project of the New American Century which was written, published and deployed by American Zionism.

American Zionism has been a major blind-spot on the Left and it is the major reason why the anti-war movement has been marginalized. Your arguments only confirm why there will NEVER be unity on the Left. It it demonstrates that the Left cannot be trusted. The Left shows that it is all to willing to abandon comrades willing to speak out against Zionism and racism. The Left shows that rather than confront this issue it will use sophistry and twisted doublespeak in order to obscure a racist ideology that has gain enormous power and influence in the United States.

Yet recently rather than confront racism we now see a spat of articles from Left-wing writers engaging in some of the most retrograde and reactionary “blame-the-voter” rhetoric. If this is what is a reflection of the Left today then I don’t blame the voters for voting for Obama because there is nothing “Left” of the Democrats. Failing to find anything “Left” of the Democrats it would seem that voters are making the “best” choice.

Since you don’t think the USA is an imperialist empire and that Israel is the (primary if not only) reason we have been fighting wars; and that there is no connection between our military industrial complex and US monopolistic corporatism, there’s little use in discuss these matters.

Yours is a fanciful world, void of historical facts, I’m afraid.

If that isn’t Chomskyesque I don’t know what else is.

Here’s an article from Ismael Hossein-Zadeh which provides a respite from the Chomskyesque doublespeak you constantly promote.

You’ve got this one-note about “left obscuring…”. Most of those articles are written by Petras who sees things through the same narrow prism as you’ve accustomed yourself to.

Hegemony and wars over natural resources have been going on for many centuries. Claiming that Venezula estimates 200 years of oil sounds like the Republicans “drill drill drill, we got plenty of oil”. The lord god made this oil for the human specious to sip as fast and furious as he can greedily consume and poison the air and water and food we eat and drink. “Come” this god says, ” there is more and more and more. Fill your body with the riches of black gold..”

To understand the limitations of fossil, you need to first understand the consumption rate that is growing expotentially year in and year out and how that consumption effects the ecosystem. Together you’re lucking if you have 20 years.

Since you know that there is an endless supply (7 generations is considered sustainable) than I guess you can provide us with tomorrow’s weather report. I say this because those who have studied peak oil for years (other than the oil industry) strongly disagree with your postion. Start with Richard Heinberg’s work http://www.richardheinberg.com/ He’s no Chomsky.
Max

This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

That right Max keep doing what the Left does best… obscure, distort, deflect and diffuse. How “Chomskyesque” of you.

The issue of Peak Oil is being used to obscures the fact that the recent rise in oil prices has nothing to do with supply and demand forces. I guess your fear is that if it is not supply and demand then it must be for some other reason.

There are plenty articles here on DV with makes the argument that the reason for the oil price rise has more to do with unregulated speculators and the destabilization caused by the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Chavez has 200 years of oil if it’s not gobbled up by China, India and the West.

This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

We have seen 700 years of conflict built on Feudalism and natural resource hegomony; primarily a Western export.

Land is the basis for all wars. By land I mean control over valued natural resources. Oil is one of hundreds of thousands of resources that are the primary target of Western preditory capitalism. This is not new. Israel is an extension of the West and the licensing and privatizing for a few of natural resources is a Western tradition. Just as the European settlers in Africa and the Americas viciously moved to take preditory land grabs as they raped and settled the land from coast to coast, then moved outward to the rest of the world. It is an ugly cancer.

Thank you very much for your analysis. It is extremely informative and why I’m grateful that DV permits reader comments. Thanks for the correction regarding Alcohols. This was being touted as a solution to the oil crisis in the late 70′s since I recall being told that the Indy racers use Methanol instead of gasoline. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Overall we’re on the same page and I’m in total agreement with you that there is no supply/demand crisis and there needs to be a renewed interest in automotive mileage standards. Apparently your old Probe shows that it can be done and that it is not pie-in-the-sky.

Thanks,
Deadbeat.