A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.
This shows once more that oil wasn’t the major factor that made the US invade Iraq. Certainly, oil played a role. But not the oil itself but the power over the oil. But the objective was power. Is power. Will be power. And this makes me think of a passage of a certain book…
„For ever!“ he repeated. „And now let us get back to the question of ‘how’ and ‘why’. You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,“ he added as Winston remained silent.
Nevertheless Winston did not speak for another moment or two. A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad glean of enthusiasm had come back into O’Brien’s face. He knew in advance what O’Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind happiness was better. That the Party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.
[...]
„You are ruling over us for our own good,“ he said feebly. „You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore–“
He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O’Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
„That was stupid, Winston, stupid!“ he said. „You should know better than to say a thing like that.“ He pulled the lever back and continued: „Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. [...] We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.“
—
Which makes me wonder… can one be an *unwilling* Neo-Realist? I think one can – if you take away the hatred of humans the old realists had, you can maintain that other way of being are possible and desirable for humans, only not within states.
