Friday, April 08, 2011

on certain Green's defence of military intervention


I just had a serious flame-off at Rupert Read, a Green Party Councillor for Norwich, and strident advocate of military intervention in Libya. I fully confess to provoking him by accusing him of suffering from 'Johann Syndrome' over his support for the war, in the manner of Johann's support for the Iraqi invasion, subsequently recanted. Johann, in his most recent article for the Independent, has laid out some pretty damning ground for considering the UK and US's motivations for intervention to be utterly suspect. Not least that "Libya is among the 10 top oil producers in the world". 

I simply don't believe that Rupert, as a Green Party Councillor, is ignorant of the fundamental addiction of modern society to oil and the consequent geopolitical importance of its supply. So for him to write that "I don't care why Cameron and Obama are intervening. Only that they've saved the freeLibyans from decimation" is to utterly ignore the preponderance for Western governments, particularly the US and UK, to act utterly immorally in order to secure oil supplies without a shade of concern for the life or liberty of the people who might currently be occupying the suddenly valuable land. Its simply incredulous that someone in such a position of prominence for the 'left' can fall for the concept of "humanitarian intervention" without considering the geopolitical importance of the target nation. 

Its even more laughable that Rupert claims that:
"[Johann's] argument fails because motive is not relevant. What matters is that we do the right thing 4 #Benghazi" 
That's just moral abdication of the lowest order! Motives are entirely suspect when dealing with  the geopolitics of one of the top-10 oil producing countries in the world!!!

The most insane aspect of Rupert's implausible endorsement is his failure to endorse similar action in a host of similar humanitarian and democratic crises in recent history (crises in nations which weren't cursed by abundant fossil fuel reserves). 

Even in light of recent events in Libya, which were utterly predictable to anyone who bothered to follow the history of NATO's many, many similar 'collateral losses', he has failed to post anything remotely regretful. 

I'm, proud to say that I finished matters in a predictably unequivocal, punkscience-fashion:
@GreenRupertRead I'm concerned you haven't got the msg yet: I think you're a vacuous, unprincipled prick. Get bent you fucking cunt.
*sigh* It seems that even otherwise intelligent and insightful members of the Green Party aren't immune from moments of fucktardery and moral failure. 

Now, who does that remind you of . . . ?

Anyway, enough crudely self-referential deprecation. Some Chomsky to close:
"Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region." If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the heart of the world's major energy supplies, that will enhance significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30 years: US-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked to South and Southeast Asia economies.
It is a rational calculation, on the assumption that human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth. And that is nothing new. These themes resonate through history. The difference today in this age of nuclear weapons is only that the stakes are enormously higher."


  1. How dare you sir! Lord Rupert of Read (
    is the foremost philosophic mind in this realm, and he is a frequent participant in demonstrations over the years against you nasty scientific types torturing fluffy animals, so there!

  2. Cock to the guy. He's a fucking sell-out to neo-imperial war-porn fantasies.

  3. "Cock to the guy. He's a fucking sell-out to neo-imperial war-porn fantasies."
    Profane, succinct and correct.


Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.