Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
U.S. boot steps on a Caribbean flea
Morning everyone.
An old piece by Stan Goff about ‘supporting the troops’, describing his part in the Grenada invasion - http://tinyurl.com/o2o3qPosted by Mew on from london 10/03 at 05:54 AMHi Mickey and Mew. Mew, that is a good article you link to, written by someone on the inside. I remember the day that the invasion of Grenada made the newspapers. I was working in a New Jersey high school at the time. That day when I went to work, I was angry at yet more usa war crimes. When I mentioned the invasion to some of the teachers, none seemed to be interested....a bombed hospital, dead patients, more usa war crimes, and no one cared.
From a great Stephen Zunes article, “...The quality of life for most islanders deteriorated in the period following the invasion despite infusions of American aid. This was most apparent in the health care field, where not a single pediatrician remained in this country where 60% of the population was under 25, nor was there a single psychiatrist to care for 180 mental patients. (Seventeen patients and one staff member were killed when the U.S. bombed the mental hospital during the invasion.)...”Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/03 at 07:24 AMWell, I can’t say I remember the invasion of Grenada. I was six. I think about the only thing I remember from that year was the the scene where Luke battles the Rancor in Jabba’s Palace. That’s the scene I remember from watching Return of the Jedi on the big screen.
I’d heard the name mentioned later in life, as one of those places where we’d gone to “war” (to borrow the popular euphamism).
Still later, after 9/11 and after actually being stricken with the desire to learn about what goes on/has gone on in the world around me, I picked up a book called “Killing Hope: America’s CIA and Military Interventions Since WWII” by a certain Mr. William Blum, quoted in MZ’s article.
Thanks to both of them for helping to educate another one of the ignorants (I’ve been working on that, come a long ways, long ways to go).
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 07:58 AMHi Jeremy...It still bothers me that no one cares when we invade and murder. The Grenada invasion is such an obvious war crime AND NO ONE CARES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (except a few people here)
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/03 at 08:07 AMI wrote a letter to the Washington Post this morning, just adapted it into a short article:
In The Washington Post’s October 2 article, “Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias,” author Shankar Vedantum asserts that “it isn’t quite true” that “we saw the disaster coming” in Iraq, with the “disaster” being a reference to the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion “that the war in Iraq was creating more terrorists than it was eliminating.”
The only problem with this argument, which would be more at home in the op-eds, rather than posing as an objective news item, is that it is perfectly true that an increased threat of terrorism was both predictable and well predicted.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 08:49 AMI was a month shy of four when Grenada was invaded. My grandmother is a music teacher and when I was 7 or 8 helped bring over a choir from there to sing in the nearest town, some of them stayed in our house and it was all a lot of fun.
Posted by owen on from barcelona 10/03 at 09:23 AMGood morning, everyone.
Jeremy, I don’t really want to spend too much more time on this, because as you and Mickey have both pointed out, there’s good reasons to be treating peak oil as a reality, in an attempt to get us away from the dangerous environmental effects that oil has on the planet, however, I still need to reply to a few of the points that you made yesterday.
Jeremy said: “The Middle East is expected to peak in the near future”
Well, I guess that depends on who you ask.
http://tinyurl.com/2dn3c
From the article:
“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic....
...If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12-15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”Then there’s the supply of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://tinyurl.com/o55ycThere are many other large sources in the world that aren’t being tapped either. Why? Because in many cases, the extraction costs would be a lot higher. Of course, by a lot higher, I’m talking about going from 2 dollars to 4 dollars a barrel. Which brings me to this that Jeremy said: “This is not a conspiracy by oil companies, it’s supply and demand. Nor will the collapse of the economy that would result be the decision of the oil companies, as you suggested in #23.”
I’m confused in what way a global economic collapse WOULDN’T be the decision of the oil companies. If there is more oil on planet, as you even acknowledge (and the two articles I’ve linked to are just the tip of the iceberg, there are many reserves that no one is even thinking about tapping yet, because of how it would interfere with the current level of their profits), then we aren’t really talking about the regular rules of a supply and demand economy. The oil companies can operate outside of that because everyone is a slave to what they’re selling. Basically, what I’m saying is, if the global economy collapses because the price of oil that everyone is buying becomes too much, would that not be because of the oil companies needing to make a certain level of profit? Because, from what I’m seeing, the price that it costs to extract and refine a barrel of oil is still WAY below the price to buy a barrel. Until that hits one to one and the oil companies fail to make any profit at all, there’s leeway that if the oil companies didn’t care about collapsing the global economy (which, as I said yesterday, is bad for business, because once you’ve done that, you might have increased your short-term profits, but you’ve destroyed your long-term and no company is gonna do that) could work within.
I guess if you’re arguing that we ARE reaching that one to one point soon, then, there’s nothing I can really say further, because we’re just operating under a different set of assumptions. I guess the entire reason I’m posting this is that I take exception to your authoritative claims that it’s not a conspiracy, when you and I don’t really know anything beyond picking and choosing the projection systems we like better.
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/03 at 09:39 AMHi Banta,
Yes, it does depend upon who you ask. <a href ="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1DE9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm">i.g.</a>
Obviously, not everyone agrees.
There’s oil in the Gulf of Mexico, yes, but it’s deep water. The technology to get at it is being developed, but it’s extremely expensive (as noted in the article, and as you yourself pointed out).
I don’t understand what you mean by suggesting again that a global economic collapse would be the result of a “decision” by oil companies. It’s a matter of supply and demand. Demand will increase. Supply will decrease. As oil becomes more expensive to get out of the ground, oil companies will pass off those expenses to consumers, thus raising costs. This is not a “decision” by oil companies to crash the global economy. It’s simple economics. The oil companies are delivering a product in high demand.
So you might just as easily argue that you are making a “decision” to collapse the global economy every time you drive your car.
Last, I don’t think either one of us is operating on any “assumptions”. It’s a fact that oil is a non-sustainable, non-renewable source of energy. It’s also a fact that global production will peak. It’s a fact that our global economy is dependent upon cheap energy. It’s a fact that alternative, clean, renewable sources of energy are not currently capable of replacing our demand for oil. These are the facts. I don’t need to do the math for anyone.
In the end, as you seemed to agree, it’s better to err on the side of caution, I think. Taking action now would only benefit us, while continuing on our present course could potentially be catastrophic. To what extent is debatable.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 10:05 AMOops. I thought I had that HTML thing down.
<A HREF ="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1DE9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm">i.g.</A>
There, that’s better. Sorry ‘bout that. Geez, I’ll shut up for a while and let others get a word in. ;)
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 10:08 AM*Sigh* It worked in the preview. I give up.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 10:10 AMJeremy said: “It’s a fact that oil is a non-sustainable, non-renewable source of energy.”
That once again depends on who you ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_originYou also said: “This is not a “decision” by oil companies to crash the global economy. “
It is, if you believe that the amount to produce a barrel of oil is less than the amount to sell it safely without crashing the economy. Basically, I’ve heard estimates before that the price of oil could go all the way into the 180 dollar a barrel range (for selling it, I mean) and that it wouldn’t crash the world economy. Things would be a lot different, but we’d still be pumping along. So, that means, until the cost to produce a barrel of oil EXCEEDS 180 dollars a barrel (the exact number isn’t important here, I’m just trying to illustrate my point), then it is the oil companies decision in a manner of speaking.
And once again, we differ because if I’m understanding you properly, you believe that the cost to produce IS gonna hit that level sometime soon. I don’t.
But really, this is so pointless to argue about. We both think that we need to get off of oil immediately and that’s the only bottomline that matters.
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/03 at 10:27 AMTo me, it’s a phrase that could mean many things. Many use this word as an epithet tossed at people who seem to promote themselves as morally superior to others. It could also mean, in an equally epthithetical way, one who promotes him- or herself over and above the cause to which that person is committed. Essentially, what it really means is an attitude. And we unfortunately emphasize this attitude in a negative way. The first definitions, according to my sources and dictionaries, indicate this word is an attribute of one’s attitude. self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj. 1. Piously sure of one’s own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.History has shown that we have gone back and forth on the meaning. Seems to me the way it is defined today one is caught in a catch-22 if they claim to be moralistic. Frankly, I’m tired of apologizing for knowing what is and is not right so long as I respect the other person’s faith. I don’t agree wholeheartedly with Ramtha’s perspective, partly because I don’t know a lot about it, and partly because it seems too far out there for me, but I don’t disagree with it either. I believe what I believe and I’m still able to take from the good stuff someone else has to say. I often wonder why people who share so much in common are so adamant when they disagree. To me that’s not organizing that’s being in a perpetual state of tinkering. How can anything go through the ‘proper incubation’ stage to become a unified entity if we’re giving equal or more attention to our own interpretations of the specifics? This doesn’t mean to stop learning f/ each other. Isn’t it really about a broad vision that encompasses peace and social justice? It just means we would be better off knowing who we are as a group. Constant focus and agreement on the big issues should be a no-brainer. It never gets cultivated.
Posted by dw on from ohio 10/03 at 10:36 AMOOPs! I left out the first part— JEREMY: f/ last night, re “self-righteousness”
Posted by dw on from ohio 10/03 at 10:38 AMBanta, do you believe that oil is a sustainable, renewable source of energy?
Again, yes, you could argue that it’s an oil company “decision” to crash the economy--just as you could similarly argue that it’s your “decision” to crash the economy by driving your car each day.
To be clear, oil discovery peaked many decades ago. Oil production is expected by many to peak within the next decade or two. The economy is dependent upon cheap energy. Alternatives are not currently available to compensate for the decline of oil production and increase in price (a key being “cheap” energy). New technology will provide access to formerly unavailable oil sources, yes. This will not result in an ever increasing rate of production, however, but will only serve to mitigate the inevitable decline.
To argue that production will not decline is to argue that oil is a sustainable, renewable source of energy. If we accept that oil is non-sustainable and non-renewable, then to argue that peak production will not adversely affect the global economy is to argue that the world’s economy is not dependent upon cheap oil. If we accept that the global economy is dependent upon cheap energy, then I really don’t see any way around it. The timeline and full impact are debatable, certainly.
We agree on the bottom line. As you said, that’s the most important thing. I’d love to discuss solutions with the Expendables.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 11:24 AMhello MZ and MZers
funny you should mention the way hollywood treats this sort of things today as i just checked in here shortly after writing something about.
will link tomorrow if i finish it by then.
in relation to the oil debate going on.. if the remaining oil reserves are extracted and used (whether we have reached peak or not)then the climate chaos that will unleash will make the current oil wars seem like a sideshow.
and is somethign isnt done, after the oil wars we have the water wars to look forward to.
the only way out of this is to drastically reduce our consumption of both of these things
people always try and look for the quick techno fix.. but its not going to work
not this time
Posted by michael on from exile 10/03 at 11:25 AMClint Eastwood was an integral part of my childhood. I have probably seen every one of his westerns and Dirty Harry movies...The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is still one of my favorites. I was ten when Heartbreak Ridge came out and I loved it. I wonder how I overcame all of that? Of course, people do change...I thought with The Unforgiven Eastwood took a different look at violence and exposed its ugliness.
FYI, captcha = western. Now that’s funny…
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 10/03 at 11:26 AMJeremy said: “Banta, do you believe that oil is a sustainable, renewable source of energy?”
Renewable? Possibly. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the research done into the abiotic theory of oil certainly seems more credible than it would appear by the attention given to it by mainstream scientists (fancy that!)
Sustainable? Most certainly not. Even if oil was regenerating, it would seem that we would eventually reach the peak at some point anyway, as long as technologies based on oil consumption continue to expand and dominate our current society.
Which brings us to, as you said, a matter of simply discussing a timeline. And as I said yesterday, I believe that it’s possible that the environmental damage we’re doing to the planet would end up destroying civilization before we run out of oil. Either way, time is short and the answer is the same, we must pursue new energy technologies.
But the key in our pursuit of new energy technologies is that if mankind is to ever truly free itself from an influence of elites, the new energy needs to be something simple and use something that is literally everywhere. For instance, even if we were to perfect solar technology, the new barons of the world would simply be those who would find and horde the supplies that go into building the generators. Certainly, the environmental effect would be severely lessened (and I don’t mean to sound like I’m understating the importance of that), but our current condition would remain the same: slaves to the people who supply us with our energy.
Basically, a movement needs to be created to get EVERYONE on the planet responsible for their own energy needs. Of course, that is most likely impossible, but I figure, aim high and then even if we don’t get there, at least we might fight off the physical destruction of the planet.
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/03 at 11:38 AMMan I bet if you hooked up all the excercise bikes in New York and LA to little battery cells you could generate enough power in one morning to mix their energy smoothies that afternoon.
Posted by Keir on from The Hague (Jackowski election hdqts) 10/03 at 11:46 AMWell I was thinking of jumping into the “Peak Oil” fray again after catching up on last nights post. but Banta beat me to it. Thank you Banta! So I won’t throw any more links into the mix or someone might lose an eye. hehe
I do have to say that society not having alternative fuels available for the next 100 years is simply untrue. I can understand the statement if your talking about completely stopping oil use in every situation. Sure that’s not gonna happen for a long while. But simply supplementing our energy with green alternatives is available right now and at a reasonable cost.
Ya see Jeremy? It all breaks down that we need more Oreos! There is only a 1/4 Oreo spent on “energy independence and renewables”. We need some more cookies man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YzPuCGShI8
Sorry about the link, where protective goggles.
Peace and Love,
Luna
ROTFLMAO!!! @ Keir. Great Comment!Posted by Luna_C on from the Delta 10/03 at 11:54 AMI think as long as there are no giant monopolies in any one area of energy production, it won’t really be a concern. It’s a necessary division of labor. I don’t have all day to produce my energy needs, just like I don’t have time to make my own shoes. Other people make my shoes, and I buy them so I can get on with my own business.
I have a friend working in the solar field. There’ve been advances, but it’s still quite expensive to set up any real viable solar array that would really be capable of offsetting other consumption significantly. It’s certainly got potential.
Solar, wind, hydro; these are the main clean alternatives, but together they’re a long way from contributing greatly. There was a great series of articles in a recent issue of Scientific American on the energy issue, addressing both the problems and the potential solutions, from the feasible to the far-fetched.
People talk about ethanol and “bio-diesels”. It may be a better alternative, but we can’t be fooled: currently, it requires much energy to produce such alternatives--energy that comes from burning oil and coal.
Conservation is crucial, although it can only offset the impact and not reverse it. For that, we need alternatives.
Keir, I like it.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 12:13 PMLuna, I don’t recall anybody here ever saying that alternative fuels will not be available for the next 100 years. I agree with you that’s untrue. Alternatives have been factored into my equation. Like you said, we need some more Oreos! (Not to mention fewer BBs)
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 12:24 PMJOS #16...I, too, often think about the subtle ways in which young minds were bent when I was growing up. Hating the Japanese, Indians, Germans, etc was considered to be patriotic. The WW2 movies spread the propaganda. And of course, when we played cops and robbers all of the kids wanted to be cops. Everybody wanted to be the cowboy who won against the Indians. SICK…
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/03 at 12:27 PMJeremy I fear your missing my point. I’m sure your friend knows exactly what he’s talking about however it sounds like both of you are thinking large scale plants that create enough energy to drive entire cities. I agree with you that won’t happen any time soon, if it’s even possible with current tech. It’s the same point James Lovelock makes which brings him to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only way to solve our plight.
My point is that you decentralise power creation to the individual level to supplement our energy consumption. This doesn’t mean you have to hand crank your batteries for a 1/2 hour before you can surf the net. If the Government spent a couple of cookies (see #19) on subsidising solar cells, converting cars to green machines and other alternatives for the individual to do at home. That alone would be a tremendous stride towards breaking the oil habit. There is no reason (other then the obvious corruption) that this couldn’t happen and have a dramatic impact on our cultures oil consumption.
Love you all,
LunaPosted by Luna_C on from the Delta 10/03 at 12:31 PMOops Sorry Jeremy, I didn’t see your #21 before posting my #23.
Silly Luna..
Posted by Luna_C on from the Delta 10/03 at 12:43 PMLuna, I was speaking specifically of arrays to power individual homes, actually, which seems right in line with what you are saying. Powering cities would be nice, too, but that’s not what I was thinking of or speaking to.
You speak of decentralizing power production to the individual level, but I don’t know how that would happen. If you put up a solar array, you’re still dependent upon a corporation to construct the solar panels. There’s a necessary division of labor. This is both necessary and, I think, desirable.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/03 at 12:47 PMHello Expendables...another gorgeous day in NYC. Perfect for game one of the Yanks playoffs run.
As is often the case lately, I am woefully behind. In terms of peak oil, I stand by my comments yesterday but will add this: Over-debating this issue is not unlike the bull focusing on the red cape instead of the matador. Whether oil is plentiful, renewable, running out, or whatever, the oil-based economy has been kryptonite to life on Earth.
JOS: I also was an Eastwood fan. To a young boy/man, his formula can be intoxicating.
More soon…
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/03 at 01:29 PMI’m with Luna...everyone attempt to provide as much as possible for their own power needs. yes, solar arrays are a bit pricey (I’ve had two estimates done for my house) one is looking long term, not to recoup the loss overnight. Every time Congress passes another war spending bill, I say out loud, “Do you know how many solar panels that would buy?”
I also learned how to make bio-diesel from waste vegetable oil (WVO)...not that difficult, one must just pay attention to the details for it to come out right. Now if I could only get a diesel vehicle out here in California (laws are restrictive for passenger diesel vehicles)....
There is never going to be a magic wand, a one wave solution to the world’s energy needs. There will be many solutions and they all must be acted upon instead of them being shot down one by one.
Posted by The CultureGhost on from Concord CA 10/03 at 01:33 PMLuna,
I’m glad that you approve of my peak oil comments. The video you linked to is very entertaining as well.Mickey Z wrote: “Over-debating this issue is not unlike the bull focusing on the red cape instead of the matador.”
Perfect. I was trying to come up with an analogy that said something to the same effect, but my brain was not cooperating. Still though, I don’t think that there’s any harm in debating specific aspects of any topic, as long as you don’t get too attached to your opinion.
You’re a Yankees fan, Mickey? For shame! (I’m a Mets fan.)
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/03 at 01:39 PMHi All…
I am not a movie-goer but I just might make an exception for this one. If anyone sees it, please let us know.
http://anunreasonableman.com/Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/03 at 01:58 PMClint Eastwood is creepy as hell - ever count the number of sexual assaults on women in his films? and Unforgiven, that sensitive treatment of violence that resolved everything with a bloodbath, more of an advertisement than the scholarly expose it pretended to be.
Posted by owen on from barcelona 10/03 at 03:04 PMWell, Gene Hackman’s character beat Morgan Freeman’s character to death and the owner let Hackman string him up in front of the bar...anyone in there had to know that they would be mowed down without mercy!
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 10/03 at 03:38 PMRegarding Morgan Freeman:
http://www.amimorganfreemanornot.com/Go on, try it-- it’s surpisingly addictive.
But come on-- do westerns and such movies get much better than the Outlaw Josey Wales? Complete with yes, a sexual assault on a young Sondra Locke (future Mrs. Eastwood) and lines like “Dyin’ ain’t much of a living.” Seriously, it was kinda cool how he made peace with that native tribe toward the end of the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075029/
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 10/03 at 05:58 PMI’ve always loved Clint’s westerns. Still do, providing I’m in the right mood to compartmentalise and enjoy the action adventure as fiction, think about the possible realities or lessons and it usually goes very wrong.
“Southern”?? I said Western!!!
Posted by Amelopsis on from Canada 10/03 at 06:00 PMI met Eastwood when I worked at the Vertical Club. I look over to the Stairmaster (the old kind…the one that looks like a reverse escalator) and there’s Clint . The only problem was that Dirty Harry was walking backwards…a no-no at the Vertical. As gym floor manager, I had to enforce the rules.
“Excuse me, but you’re not allowed to walk backwards.”
Clint leans way down, squints at me, and rasps: “Why’s that…punk?”
All right, he didn’t say “punk,” but the “Why’s that?” was classic enough.
Funny thing: Clint ended up complying without a fight and being the most down-to-earth celebrity in Vertical history.Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/03 at 06:10 PMThanks for reminding us of Grenada, Mickey!
And ‘hi’ to all you expendables from a very warm Daylesford where it is 86F today - and in parts of Australia the bushfires have already started. Here we are in the second month of spring, and one can only wonder how hot summer is going to be.
Take care all of you,
HelgaPosted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 10/03 at 06:23 PMHi everyone.
Nice article on Grenada. I like the refrain “Sound familiar?” do the similarites of u.s. actions and propaganda used in in the 1983 invasion of Grenada only apply to the current war in Iraq or has it been used in other invasions prior to and since the invasion of Grenada? one may find instances throughout history where these tactics were used. The ‘humanitarian mission’ being one.
Jeremy: Nice article An Unpredicted “Disaster”? it gives a clue how the u.s. government can get away with using the same old propaganda that leads to an invasion. media rallies behind whatever the government its doing. It neither puts the invasion in a historical context (comparing it to past invasions) nor does it give any analysis of U.S role in fomenting hostility in the region.
Re: Oil I know The Tin Man can’t move without the stuff. I also know that Mario, Jo, Bimba, and Luigi are offered lots of cash to transfer nitroglycerin, which is needed to put out an oil fire at a u.s. oil well, across the south american jungle, in Clouzot’s Wages of Fear (the name of the oil company is Southern Oil Company a reference to Standard Oil)
http://tinyurl.com/gpoplPosted by TM on from 10/03 at 06:31 PMtwo off-the-cuff comments:
1. Years ago I read a very interesting book called “Existential Social Work” (Krill) which has a chapter called “The Good, Bad, and Ugly.”
The author argued that social reformers often err by the stereotypes they (often unintentionally) attach to themselves and others. To wit: The “Good” are those who possess superior morals/information/solutions etc. The “Bad” are the evildoers (individuals, customs, institutions) that stand in the way of reform. And “The Ugly” are those who stupidly, or helplessly suffer the consequences engendered by the Bad. If only they would heed the advice of the Good!
The author suggested that real reform should involve being more aware and more humble: humanitarian reform involves creating or identifying and promoting… choices. In other words, the “outcome” or results of any advocacy is likely unknowable qualitatively or quantitatively. If nothing more, the book taught me to be more skeptical of motives and “good intentions”, and more forgiving. One can progress (or regress) along many tangents. Of course WE know who the Good really are....
2. I recall the Grenada invasion. I suppose that was when I began to realize that the Reagan administration’s purposes were anything but humanitarian. I was working and studying on a U.S. Army Base, and got into many arguments with my instructors who were often sickeningly jingoistic supporters of the invasion. (The soldiers, many returning from sketchy missions in central America, were much less celebratory about what was going on-- and I deeply appreciated their opinions; today I love reading Stan Goff’s writing).
I recall doing some independent research using armed forces reports to discover how the spoils of war actual stacked up to the perceived threat that was bandied about in the lead up to the invasion. It seemed highly exaggerated. Photos of captured weapons seemed pitiful: boxes of bullets, some small arms etc. The Cubans were supposed to be building an infrastructure to launch invasions themselves… more likely they were simply doing little more than what they said they were doing: improving the airport runways to improve the island’s trade and tourism. The U.S. press did little to follow the story after the invasion was over. It was hugely frustrating (and lonely) trying to argue that the invasion was a narcissistic campaign.
I just now googled “Grenada + Invasion” and images. How do these images compare to America’s gargantuan arsenal? http://tinyurl.com/rqwz8 Somehow I do not think these weapon-finds were “staged"-- it was not so long ago, but in a strange way (compared to the government in power here today) our country was somehow innocent by its incredulity (although many of the motives behind our leaders’ imperialistic agenda were then as destructive, feckless, and evil as they are today).
I guess in some ways I am not really an existentialist. There does seem to be Good, Bad, and Ugly.
Posted by Robert B. Livingston on from San Francisco, California 10/03 at 09:12 PMAs they say in the land of spaghetti, Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo. G’night, all.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/03 at 09:19 PMRobert, not to get hung up on some semantic thing, but since I am reading Sartre in my reading my weekly book club now.... what do you mean by your last point? I mean, do you believe that Good, Bad and Ugly are forces that exist without, or before, people? I think that’s the point of existentialism, that People *exist* first, and then they find categories to fall into… existence before essence, is how it goes.
But I see what you’re saying besides that, Grenada being an embarrassment to the US all around…
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 10/03 at 09:52 PMAs usual, I’m a couple hours late and a dollar short, but I would like to weigh in with one little tidbit: while I’m sure the invasion of Grenada, and plans for such, were floating around for awhile, does anyone else remember what happened on October 23, 1983? Two days before the invasion was the suicide bombing in Lebanon that killed 241 American troops. Clearly, this was a tragic coincidence, and had nothing to do with PR / distracting the public. I’m sure you’d all agree. By the way, Mickey, I just saw this amazing movie, I have to tell you: if you get a dvd player, man… just kidding, of course.
Posted by DPI on from The NJ 10/03 at 10:31 PMDerek Jeter, 5 for 5. Amazing!
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 10/03 at 11:12 PM
Next entry: Hillary Clinton: Exclusive Nude Photos!!!!
Previous entry: Apoca-Links Now
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
