Sigh. Why does the US government make unforturnate choices?

Noam has been inhaling the conspiracy vapours too long. Remember, according to him, Somalia was about getting their oil. His diatribes have become so incoherent lately that even his long time buddies Hitchens and Fisk have distanced themselves.

 

I stopped reading there.

 

Well since i began reading in this forum about war in Iraq I wanted to post.
Most of time spent in this forum i've read without posting cause there is much thought food here, just about 3D as about war and is a great experience for me to read here.

First i will list some very good articles I read from links quoted here; (with a not so serious turn in my way of quoting them):

• 
  *God and the White House (the impressions of an atheist english corresponsal in the White House; praying is important there)
  *a would be first address to the U.S. by George Bush not so funny and regretfully not so untrue.
  *why this U.S. government had created in other countries some distrust and contempt even if the actions were not so diferent than before (by a Newsweek journalist, a completely different view than the article quoted by Joe De Furia in Why they Hate America).
  *the paper by Noah Chomsky

I cannot feel I have authority to condemn anybody, but i think US actions weigh more heavily as part of the problem than as part of solution. I think Bush cannot see the problem and hence he cannot see solutions either. Joe asked 'do you want to argue wich was the first' and very wisely he got no as an answer; but US government is acting just like that. I think this war would have not happened without the tragedy of September 11th, for many people that must be the 'first', but probably the motives of people who did that were similar to the motives of people who decided this war: fear and the feeling of being not heard, coupled with "we are going to give them wich they deserve".

I do not know if this proverb is also used in english but it is in spanish: breed ravens and they will take out your eyes; somebody talked in this forum about smaller wrongs that are necessary to avoid bigger wrongs, i would say these are just "lesser" evils (really we cannot measure more or less in this issues) and that these "lesser" evils tend to grow; both Saddam and Bin Laden were supported by the US government. As long as U.S just passes along the agression it has suffered it only continues it and prepares its further continuation, only in the measure it does not use power alone and does not resort to "smaller wrongs" this agression chain may be solved. we -human beings- need not only power we need humble power and good will.

About "Jihad" (with my excuse to Tahir for changing the muslim meaning of this word and keeping only a vague used meaning) I see in this moment Bush doing one and i dont't like it.
It's just like this: the most horrible actions men do are done in the name of the best motives.
I do not pretend that those actions are all equal but as somebody said in this thread if we look back there is blood in everybody's hands and my experience has made me VERY distrustful of those that pretend to be morally better.
As Al Gore said this government has managed to pass from a situation where all the world backed it after September 11th to the present situation where people from other coutries oppose it.

 

Noam is a linguist, and a master of semantic obfuscation. Note this play on the terms preemptive and preventive war. Historically inaccurate BTW. For example,

There was a big movement in the late 40s to deal with Stalin while the USSR was weak and lacked WMD and the US had a monopoly on power and the strongest economy by a huge margin. Several high ranking defense department officials, the Paul Wolfowitzes of their day, were calling for it, which scared the shit out of the Soviets. It made the Soviets, like NK, imagine that an attack was going to come soon.

Moreover, the entire theory behind ballistic missile submarines and strategic bombers is to avert a preemptive strike, because WMDs may a preeemptive war the LOGICAL CHOICE. MAD was derived from Game Theory, and exists to prevent preemptive war because the logic of Nukes made he-who-shoots-first-wins. The only defense was to build so many missiles that it was impossible to get them all, and retalliation was assured. Submarines made this incontrovertable.

SDI scared alot of people because if a truly workable missile shield existed that could deflect any number of incoming missiles, it would again make a preeemptive strike a logical choice -- strike before the ABM system is finished.

Call it what you want Noam, Preemptive, Preventive, whatever, it is not a new concept.

Noam's only real concern is that he doesn't like capitalism. If it was a socialist country trying to create hegemony, I doubt he's raise an eyebrow.

 

I think Noam knows its not a new concept, thats pretty obvious. Its new in terms of doctrine only... man war in the late 40's... The soviets had a huge military. We would have had to start it as there was no way the russians would have... It would have probably at least equalled ww2 in death toll... And made Pearl Harbor or at least the idea behind it seem justifiable.

 

I know this was way back on the first page, but I'm only reading it now...

Yes, absolutely. But what I was thinking about (without saying, I admit) was Palestinian school books, which reportedly portray jews and Israel extremely, er, hatefully. I don't expect them to portray Israel in any heroic light, but the examples I've heard (sorry, no link) are more antisemitic hate propaganda than anything else - with emphasis on antisemitic. That is what I mean by "filling their children with hate". Not very constructive, IMO.

 

I'm very interested in what Vince, Joe, Democoder have to say regarding that interview. What do you think Russ?

Edit: I see DC has replied already, this forum is blitering!

One thing Russ commented on about the democratisation of the middle east was that Iraq was suitable because it was a relatively secular country with a solid middle class population. This hence would make it a suitable model state for democracy and reducing militant Islam in th region.

My question is why not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? After all, you are already close allies with those two countries. You have bases there, you have good relations with the leaders etc. But then they are deliberately put there as dictators to maintain stability in that oil critical region no? Do no double standards exist?

 

I've never seen Russ take this position before, but I'm glad to see someone else looking at the situation this way. I've stated this before, but I'll say it yet again.

The basic defense problem facing the United States in the 21st century is theologically based messianism. Unlike other 'terrorist' groups/cells/ideologies that are secularly based and has been shown to be a short-term solution that's psychologically induced by a host entity - the theocratic forms of messianism are, infact, much deeper rooted and thus harder to erase from a more primitive society.

I'll be frank, the problem is Islam as seen in the Middle East. Actually, the very basis of Islam, from Mohammed's flee to Medina when Mecca failed to convert, to the hijara, to the Assassins of the early 1th century, to the present day militant Islamists - the culture is one of counter-society and threw these means (eg. hijara at the least, militant at the worst) they try to recapitulate the birth of Islam.

But, before some asshole pulls some PC crap, let me make it clear that this isn't based or intended to contain ALL Islamic practicioners, or even the vast majority. Yet, and especially in the middle east - this theocratic mentality is mated with a rich, eductated, upper-class that controlls the vast sea of stupidity underneith it. And this is where the problem of contemporary messianism comes into play.

We can't defeat theocratic messianism, or 'terrorism' for those who can't differentiate between the IRA or SDS and Al-Qaeda, threw military means. We can achieve a short-term solution as we did in Afghanistan, but aslong as the Middle East is a bastion of undereducated and theocratically motived people willing to strap semtex and nails to their torso's... we can't win.

The long-term solution is simple - Democratize the Middle East so that our values (freedom, life, liberty - becomes theirs). Iraq and Saddam have a rap-sheet thats longer than a roll of toilot paper, they have WMD, they pose a current and rising threat - they're removal is justified. (Although, if the president was Clinton, we could "nation-build" wherever, regardless).

So, we install a democratic and free Iraqi governmental structure. Let them have their own news agencies, et al - with in 50 years the rest of the middle east will be consumed in revolution from within... which, coincidentally, is the most desired type of change [eg. internal].


So, no Iraq isn't the blueprint, the man's just an angry leftist who'se pushing his own agenda. Perhaps there will be limited action in, say, Iran if they accelerate their nuclear program - but there won't be a massive American imperialist thrust into the middle east from the Army's broadsword. Why do that when we can sit back and watch the Middle East democratize itself from within; and with democracy will come education (eg. decline of theocratic beliefs as seen in the 1st world in the 20th century) and freedoms, and less violence ultimatly. Look at the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet states in the late '80s and '90s - freedom is intoxicatiing and it's best implimented from within than from an external source.

 

JF_Aidan_Pryde wrote:

I don't believe the Saudi monarch was installed by the US.

 

Doesn't really matter. If he's willing to believe something such as this (which is completely unfounded) then it's just indicative of his mentality - I highly doubt he's going to change.

 

First, what is a git? I looked it up and it didn't seem to make sense in the context it was being used.

Now my ramble. While the leftist such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore may seem to be conspiracy theorists, one must understand their views are certainly not unique.

What I have noticed from reading these boards and listening to NPR, is that I get more information about the whys of this war from the intelligent public, rather than our own government.

This was partly my reason to be against the war originally. The president was always ready to declare Iraq as being evil, and a threat, but the explainations to go with his accusations were thin. Even now, their story has changed from removing the threat of WMD to liberation.

Again, just a theory(or complete ignorance on my part), but if there is a majority of people who share these men's opinions, I find it hard to believe that someone can dismiss it as rubbish and the person's fault and not of their governments to properly educate them.

 

Let me rephrase: "they are supported by the US." This doesn't change my point regarding the US supporting non-democratic regiems of its chosing while banishing others.

And don't make assumptions about my mentality. I am still young and learning, without a fixed mind. I intend to maintain this open model with respect to all aspects of life.

 

.

And I am middle aged (45) and still learning.

 

This is basically the point. This is where it is the US' and other western powers' faults. They shouldn't have helped and coerced the dictatorships that existed there. It would have been better in the long run to help the more rebilious civilian groups --the ones composed of mainly moderates-- which would have created a more tolerant and forward thinking society.

Now, the problem is they're going in there calling them evil. They're both evil in my books. The governments of both nations need a good kicking in the ass.

<rant>What pisses me off the most is the fact that Islam considers it a sin not to educate oneself and learn, yet most don't take this to heart. It's disheartening to see how many (those that are within my prespective) Muslims will simply say, "well because 'wise' person x said so, we should follow." Then again, this is pervasive in other religions. In any case, I think, GRRR! about sums it up.</rant>

And I don't think Chomsky is off on the count that this has a LOT to do with oil.

 

I do not buy completely what Noah Chomsky says but sure it sheds some light on the way this is happening; though the concepts about national security used by the US now, are not new the open talk by government officers about them and the type of commitment to them is new.

 

Nah, I can't take seriously any article / interveiw where the person states:

As soon as Chomsky details for all of us how honest and decent Sadam is, and his solution for it (if he believes there needs to be a solution), then we'll talk.

Interestingly, he also said this:

So perhaps the article in the thread about "Why they Hate America" isn't so far fetched after all...

 

Again, how soon people forget history... Those "coerced.. disctatorships" are directly responcible for the downfall of the Soviet Union, the demise of Communism and the defense of Western Europe.

Geo-Politics is very volitile, nobody ever stated any diffrent... to state that the very policies and alliences that protected the freedoms and liberties the Western world now enjoy are just as evil as the people that they unfortunatly kept in power is naive IMHO.

I can't agree more, and it'll be a bright future and beautiful day when the Middle East becomes a social and scientific powerhouse based on their native resources put to positive use under the aegis of self-representative democracies.

This has very little to do with Oil - it's forward looking strategic thinking. If we, as Americans, are so hungrey for Oil then why don't we use the unrest and political instability in Venezuala as a reason to invade (eg. Panama '89 style).

The useage of the Oil argument is the pre-eminent sign of ignorance and utter studity on the part of said party which used it. It's a short-term problem that allows them to fullfill both of their rebellious inner desires to fight the "Corperate Conglomerate/Big Buisness/Industrial Complex" aswell as the "Massive/Overbearing/Right-infringing/Evil Govenment".

It's like those guys I saw on the Penn and Teller Bullshit! series that Showtime runs who are protesting genetically modified foods. I'm not talking about the literate and scientifically based opposition that's relectance is based in objective roots, but the 20-30 year olds whose arguments allways educed to the FDA, et al lying and government mistrust.

 

Obviously this has a lot to do with oil, as that's part of the reward for our sacrifice. But America (yes, you quivering lefties, even Bush) is not so stupid as to think we're going to be able to just take what we want from Iraq without consequence. And there's no need to, as it's much easier all around to just buy the oil from a friendly country--odds are a (capitalist, obviously) democracy will be much friendlier toward America than the more precarious "regimes" dotting the region. In the end, oil is valuable only if there are customers for it, so Iraq needs huge consumers like us as much as we need huge suppliers like them.

You're not going to see America waste thousands of lives to liberate North Korea, because, even though there's a moral case for doing so, it's simply not worth it. And, quite obviously, none of NK's neighbors feel immediate liberation is worth a huge sacrifice, when, in time, NK's regime will implode like all the others. I'm glad to see even China is taking steps to ensure they don't have a nuclear nutcase as a neighbor, with their temporary stoppage of oil.