OT: News About America That Made Me Angry Today
Petteri Sulonen
Standard disclaimers: I'm not targeting my criticism at the American
people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
tell me how.
Item: The US and Iran
Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
help they can get from the West.
Now, what does the US do?
It labels Iran as a member of the "axis of evil", hints at possible
military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
supporting or sheltering Al-Qaeda members, and does all it can to slap
it in the face. It is well known to the US leadership that this can
only strengthen the hard-liners. It seems that yet again the US prefers
the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
quite a while.
/Petteri
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with
experience. -- Andrew Welch
The Plasmatron
> Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
> Standard disclaimers: I'm not targeting my criticism at the American
> people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
> this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
> to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
> of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
> world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
> mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
> tell me how.
Ok. First head up ass part: The idea that the american public
elected Bush jr. and his cronies. We did not. Gore won the popular
vote. Bush won only because of our ill-concieved electorial college and
some ballot fuckups in Florida. So when you consider blame remember that
more americans voted for Gore than Bush.
> Item: The US and Iran
> Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
> help they can get from the West.
> Now, what does the US do?
It does about what you can expect when it's led by a semi-literate
moron. What *really* makes me lose faith in america is Bush's 87%
approval rating right now. I will be the first to admit that Bush is
doing *FAR* better than I expected of him, but he's still doing worse than
I would expect from pretty much any educated person. In other words I'm
just relieved and amazed he hasn't made such an ass of himself that we've
gotten into a nuclear war.
> It labels Iran as a member of the "axis of evil", hints at possible
> military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
> supporting or sheltering Al-Qaeda members, and does all it can to slap
> it in the face. It is well known to the US leadership that this can
> only strengthen the hard-liners. It seems that yet again the US prefers
> the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
That decision was of course made by Bush senior, and is one of the
most stupidly inhumane things we've ever done. Economic santions do
nothing but starve the innocent people. I'm afraid that it'll be like
daddy like son. War isn't a fucking game. We shouldn't have gotten INTO
that war in the first place if we weren't going to finish it.
> This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
> it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
> impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
> democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
> world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
> policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
> problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
> In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
> quite a while.
Well, we've got an immature and incompetent child for a
president. Unfortunately he's got the family influence (His brother was
the governer of the state with the election deciding fuck up after all) to
essentially bypass our electorial process and steal an election.
Mind you, it still scares the shit out of me that the election was so
closee that Bush was able to steal it.
> /Petteri
> --
> Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with
> experience. -- Andrew Welch
--
The Left Reverend Plasm...@godisdead.com
Ichimusai
> In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
> quite a while.
I'd really like to see this one on ATAGUN as well :)
--
\AA#769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo & MSN: Ichimusai http://www.ichimusai.org/
IRC: #AmigaSWE!Ichimusai@IRCnet Plan? Mail: krikki...@algonet.se
/Support the ASCII ribbon campaign - No HTML, RTF or MS Word in mail\
"It took the Church until 1832 to remove Galileo's work from its list
of books which Catholics were forbidden to read at the risk of dire
punishment of their immoral souls."
-- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot
Nygaard
plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:07:29 +0200 Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>> Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
>
>> Standard disclaimers: I'm not targeting my criticism at the American
>> people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
>> this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
>> to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
>> of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
>> world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
>> mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
>> tell me how.
>
> Ok. First head up ass part: The idea that the american public
>elected Bush jr. and his cronies. We did not. Gore won the popular
>vote. Bush won only because of our ill-concieved electorial college and
>some ballot fuckups in Florida. So when you consider blame remember that
>more americans voted for Gore than Bush.
50/50 is the number Europeans remember. :)
>> Item: The US and Iran
>
>> Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
>> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
>> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
>> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
>> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
>> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
>> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
>> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
>> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
>> help they can get from the West.
>
>> Now, what does the US do?
>
> It does about what you can expect when it's led by a semi-literate
>moron.
I suspect that if the system was organized so that a semi-literate
moron could wield that much power, the US would have come screaming
out of the sky, having fallen from its high perch, and crashed in a
really humiliating position/location long ago. His latest brainfart is
probably due to a lapse on the part of his keepers.
If the US system is anything like the European ones, real power is
held by at least a small junta of elderly men, or possibly a large
junta of elderly men, with some women and minorities and stuff thrown
in for the media. These are the career politicians and bureaucrats who
gives the advice, make the decisions, write the speeches, and
generally run things. Sometimes they are coordinated, sometimes not.
But their general attitude can stain the day to day policies more than
the actual party in power does.
I am very, very afraid that the USA is currently led by a group of
literate, well spoken and highly educated morons.
>What *really* makes me lose faith in america is Bush's 87%
>approval rating right now.
87!? I want a US vote right now. You people obviously can't look after
yourself. :)
...
>> It seems that yet again the US prefers
>> the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
>> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>
> That decision was of course made by Bush senior, and is one of the
>most stupidly inhumane things we've ever done. Economic santions do
>nothing but starve the innocent people. I'm afraid that it'll be like
>daddy like son. War isn't a fucking game. We shouldn't have gotten INTO
>that war in the first place if we weren't going to finish it.
Same thing happened with NATO in Kosovo, thinking they'd bomb the
place for a week to make everything all right. When you decide to go
to war, it seems best to leave the actual strategy to the
professionals...
>> This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
>> it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
>> impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
>> democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
>> world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
>> policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
>> problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
>
>> In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
>> quite a while.
>
> Well, we've got an immature and incompetent child for a
>president. Unfortunately he's got the family influence (His brother was
>the governer of the state with the election deciding fuck up after all) to
>essentially bypass our electorial process and steal an election.
Is there some kind of proto-aristocracy at work here?
Anders
...
"
And Eris spoke to Falgan and said:
"Falgan, listen to me.
peace is out, anger is in
dreams are out, reality is in
paper is out, electrons are in
cigarettes are out, oxygen is in
meditation is out, consciousness is in
sleep is out, willpower is in
order is out, chaos is in
harmony is out, discord is in
truth is out, confusion is in
bureaucracy is out,
aftermath is here."
- The Book of Stamps
"
-alt.discordia.
Glenn M.
news:a4rnl5$b4v$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu:
<snip>
>
> Mind you, it still scares the shit out of me that the election was
> so
> closee that Bush was able to steal it.
>
For someone who doesn't know diddly squat about politics, and is just
following the race on the news, here's the decision people had. One one
side, you had a clean as a whiste good 'ol boy who wouldn't harm a fly. On
the other hand you had a scheming corrupt liar who'd say anything or do
anything to get into power. Then add to that the idea that there is no real
difference between the candidates, so you 'mise well vote for the good 'ol
boy.
All is fine and good except for the point that the "good ol boy" doesn't
have an ethical bone in his body, and all the cases that pointed out the
other candidate was a liar were...well...lies. And the idea that A = B is
just insane when you consider the first point.
The people didn't stand a chance.
And to be On-Topic for the off-topic...of course his statements are going
to make stronger the fundimentalist forces..why do you think he said them
int he first place? Need some boogey-man in order to get huge military
contracts for his Carlyle Group buddies.
Maybe I'm too cynical. Of course, the man doesn't have an ethical bone in
his body. So maybe not.
--
-grm-
Love is not the question, love is the answer | NightMare Radio!
9/11..the end of the age of innocence | Insert into WinAmp
What I choose, is my voice | http://64.152.82.76:16746
I just want to be me... | And Enjoy!
The Plasmatron
> On 18 Feb 2002 20:19:49 GMT, (The Plasmatron)
> plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:07:29 +0200 Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>>> Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
>>
>>> Standard disclaimers: I'm not targeting my criticism at the American
>>> people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
>>> this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
>>> to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
>>> of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
>>> world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
>>> mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
>>> tell me how.
>>
>> Ok. First head up ass part: The idea that the american public
>>elected Bush jr. and his cronies. We did not. Gore won the popular
>>vote. Bush won only because of our ill-concieved electorial college and
>>some ballot fuckups in Florida. So when you consider blame remember that
>>more americans voted for Gore than Bush.
> 50/50 is the number Europeans remember. :)
And admittedly it is damned embrassing that the race was even
close. I mean the american people were warned during the debate that what
Bush planned was the biggest tax cut ever to the top 2% most wealthy
people in america at the expense of everyone else. Gore should have got
98% of the frikking vote just on that alone!
>>> Item: The US and Iran
>>
>>> Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
>>> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
>>> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
>>> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
>>> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
>>> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
>>> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
>>> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
>>> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
>>> help they can get from the West.
>>
>>> Now, what does the US do?
>>
>> It does about what you can expect when it's led by a semi-literate
>>moron.
> I suspect that if the system was organized so that a semi-literate
> moron could wield that much power, the US would have come screaming
> out of the sky, having fallen from its high perch, and crashed in a
> really humiliating position/location long ago. His latest brainfart is
> probably due to a lapse on the part of his keepers.
I don't think that this could have happened without TV. Who would
vote for him if they couldn't see the cute "aw shucks" look on his
face? If all they had to go by was his words I would hope to any deitiy
listening that they would have run screaming.
> If the US system is anything like the European ones, real power is
> held by at least a small junta of elderly men, or possibly a large
> junta of elderly men, with some women and minorities and stuff thrown
> in for the media. These are the career politicians and bureaucrats who
> gives the advice, make the decisions, write the speeches, and
> generally run things. Sometimes they are coordinated, sometimes not.
> But their general attitude can stain the day to day policies more than
> the actual party in power does.
Unfortunately a very good point.
> I am very, very afraid that the USA is currently led by a group of
> literate, well spoken and highly educated morons.
<cry> All I know is that whoever his keepers are they seem to have
the same firm grasp of ethics and morality as a pedophile running a day
care center.
>>What *really* makes me lose faith in america is Bush's 87%
>>approval rating right now.
> 87!? I want a US vote right now. You people obviously can't look after
> yourself. :)
When I saw that approval rating last week I was genuinely tempted to
drop everything and run to any other country I could possibly survive in
as, as a bum if neccessary. I hope it's nothing more than excessive
patriotism in the face of him avoiding any blunders massive enough to get
us nuked so far in the course of this "war on terrorism".
> ...
>>> It seems that yet again the US prefers
>>> the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
>>> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>>
>> That decision was of course made by Bush senior, and is one of the
>>most stupidly inhumane things we've ever done. Economic santions do
>>nothing but starve the innocent people. I'm afraid that it'll be like
>>daddy like son. War isn't a fucking game. We shouldn't have gotten INTO
>>that war in the first place if we weren't going to finish it.
> Same thing happened with NATO in Kosovo, thinking they'd bomb the
> place for a week to make everything all right. When you decide to go
> to war, it seems best to leave the actual strategy to the
> professionals...
No shit. I wish they would. Their attempts to look human by doing
these stupid fucked up half measures cause FAR more carnage, death, and
suffering, than if they simply FINISHED THE FUCKING JOB IN THE FIRST
FUCKING PLACE!
Damnit! I'm a human being. I don't like to see needless
suffering. I must admit that I'm glad that we fucked with afghanistan's
government. The taliban being out of power I see as a very good thing
because they were sick fuckers. But what we did to Iraq is sick and
wrong, and the fact that people consider it somehow more humane than
finishing the job is a sign that america is filled to the brim with
pudding-heads. No shit we have to keep Saddam Hussein from getting his
hands on nukes, but the right way to do that is to get him out of power,
and kill him. The wrong way is to make *everyone* in Iraq suffer because
our leaders are gutless.
>>> This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
>>> it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
>>> impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
>>> democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
>>> world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
>>> policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
>>> problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
>>
>>> In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
>>> quite a while.
>>
>> Well, we've got an immature and incompetent child for a
>>president. Unfortunately he's got the family influence (His brother was
>>the governer of the state with the election deciding fuck up after all) to
>>essentially bypass our electorial process and steal an election.
> Is there some kind of proto-aristocracy at work here?
Please don't mention such a possibility. My nightmares are bad enough
as is.
> Anders
> ...
> "
> And Eris spoke to Falgan and said:
> "Falgan, listen to me.
> peace is out, anger is in
> dreams are out, reality is in
> paper is out, electrons are in
> cigarettes are out, oxygen is in
> meditation is out, consciousness is in
> sleep is out, willpower is in
> order is out, chaos is in
> harmony is out, discord is in
> truth is out, confusion is in
> bureaucracy is out,
> aftermath is here."
> - The Book of Stamps
> "
> -alt.discordia.
--
The Left Reverend Plasm...@godisdead.com
The Plasmatron
> (The Plasmatron) plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com wrote in
> news:a4rnl5$b4v$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu:
> <snip>
>>
>> Mind you, it still scares the shit out of me that the election was
>> so
>> closee that Bush was able to steal it.
>>
> For someone who doesn't know diddly squat about politics, and is just
> following the race on the news, here's the decision people had. One one
> side, you had a clean as a whiste good 'ol boy who wouldn't harm a fly. On
> the other hand you had a scheming corrupt liar who'd say anything or do
> anything to get into power. Then add to that the idea that there is no real
> difference between the candidates, so you 'mise well vote for the good 'ol
> boy.
> All is fine and good except for the point that the "good ol boy" doesn't
> have an ethical bone in his body, and all the cases that pointed out the
> other candidate was a liar were...well...lies. And the idea that A = B is
> just insane when you consider the first point.
> The people didn't stand a chance.
That and apparently Gore came off as being too intelligent during the
debates, and apparetly the subhumans here felt that was a bad thing. I'm
afraid that if I'm ever again going to claim to have faith in my fellow
human being, I'm going to have to get restrictive about my defintion of
human being.
> And to be On-Topic for the off-topic...of course his statements are going
> to make stronger the fundimentalist forces..why do you think he said them
> int he first place? Need some boogey-man in order to get huge military
> contracts for his Carlyle Group buddies.
> Maybe I'm too cynical. Of course, the man doesn't have an ethical bone in
> his body. So maybe not.
All I can say about the situation is that if he doesn't lose by a wide
margin, even if he does lose, I really am getting the hell out of this
country no matter what it costs me. As soon as Bush won I knew that this
country has gotten stupid, gullible, and fucked up enough for a repeat of
Nazi Germany. How much of a jump is it really from "Atheists shouldn't be
considered citizens" to "Atheists shouldn't be allowed to
live"? Especially with how well all his god talk is going over about how
we need to embrace "all" religions: Christianity, Judaism, and even
Islam. How much effort would it really take to convince america that
atheists, pagans, wiccans, buddhists, and anyone else that doesn't worship
a single father figure deity, is the enemy?
Bob Dog
<180220022107298661%Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi>:
>Item: The US and Iran
>
>Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
>The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
>dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
>Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
>more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
>strong signs of evolution towards a more open society.
Of course. People only turn to extremism when it is
the only thing that will work; democratic opposition
to the Shah was quashed.
>Now, what does the US do?
>
>It labels Iran as a member of the "axis of evil", hints at possible
>military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
>supporting or sheltering Al-Qaeda members, and does all it can to slap
>it in the face. It is well known to the US leadership that this can
>only strengthen the hard-liners. It seems that yet again the US prefers
>the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
>the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
<snip>
>In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
>quite a while.
Not since they called countries like Greece, Nicaragua,
and Chile "evil" for turning to communism. (Not that
US-backed dictatorships preventing democratic movements
had anything to do with their turning communist....)
Bob Dog
Atheist #153
+---------------------------------------------------+
|\Read widely, think deeply, but don't speak lengthy.\
+ +---------------------------------------------------+
\|Religion...when facts and reality aren't enough. |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Petteri Sulonen
plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:21:48 GMT Nygaard <olavkBRØGLEBRØGLEBRØGL...@online.no>
> wrote:
[snip]
> > Same thing happened with NATO in Kosovo, thinking they'd bomb the
> > place for a week to make everything all right. When you decide to go
> > to war, it seems best to leave the actual strategy to the
> > professionals...
>
> No shit. I wish they would. Their attempts to look human by doing
> these stupid fucked up half measures cause FAR more carnage, death, and
> suffering, than if they simply FINISHED THE FUCKING JOB IN THE FIRST
> FUCKING PLACE!
> Damnit! I'm a human being. I don't like to see needless
> suffering. I must admit that I'm glad that we fucked with afghanistan's
> government. The taliban being out of power I see as a very good thing
> because they were sick fuckers.
You know, I agree, although I was extremely worried when the campaign
began. I only hope things will turn out better, eventually. The
situation is far from sorted out yet.
> But what we did to Iraq is sick and
> wrong, and the fact that people consider it somehow more humane than
> finishing the job is a sign that america is filled to the brim with
> pudding-heads. No shit we have to keep Saddam Hussein from getting his
> hands on nukes, but the right way to do that is to get him out of power,
> and kill him. The wrong way is to make *everyone* in Iraq suffer because
> our leaders are gutless.
Hear hear. It really angers me to see the American governments make the
same mistake over and over again: support any leader, no matter how
brutal or inhumane, unconditionally, as long as he makes the right
noises and gives the USA the prerogatives it wants (military bases,
trading status, whatever). And, conversely, purposely pass up chances
to remove particularly odious "enemies" because they prefer a known bad
guy they can demonize from a distance and "contain" to the uncertainty
of change, especially in a strategically sensitive region. Remember how
the US hung tut-tutted the Baltic independence movements instead of
supporting them? It's exactly the same dynamic at work here, only in a
region which could really go up in smoke.
[snip]
The Plasmatron
> In article <a4s90c$jg8$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>, The Plasmatron <
> plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:21:48 GMT Nygaard <olavkBRØGLEBRØGLEBRØGL...@online.no>
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Same thing happened with NATO in Kosovo, thinking they'd bomb the
>> > place for a week to make everything all right. When you decide to go
>> > to war, it seems best to leave the actual strategy to the
>> > professionals...
>>
>> No shit. I wish they would. Their attempts to look human by doing
>> these stupid fucked up half measures cause FAR more carnage, death, and
>> suffering, than if they simply FINISHED THE FUCKING JOB IN THE FIRST
>> FUCKING PLACE!
>> Damnit! I'm a human being. I don't like to see needless
>> suffering. I must admit that I'm glad that we fucked with afghanistan's
>> government. The taliban being out of power I see as a very good thing
>> because they were sick fuckers.
> You know, I agree, although I was extremely worried when the campaign
> began. I only hope things will turn out better, eventually. The
> situation is far from sorted out yet.
I was worried too. Judging from his father's record I expected him to
leave the taliban in power and seriously fuck over the people under the
claim that it will somehow convince them to revolt against their
government, rather than to hate our guts, which would be the more likely
outcome.
>> But what we did to Iraq is sick and
>> wrong, and the fact that people consider it somehow more humane than
>> finishing the job is a sign that america is filled to the brim with
>> pudding-heads. No shit we have to keep Saddam Hussein from getting his
>> hands on nukes, but the right way to do that is to get him out of power,
>> and kill him. The wrong way is to make *everyone* in Iraq suffer because
>> our leaders are gutless.
> Hear hear. It really angers me to see the American governments make the
> same mistake over and over again: support any leader, no matter how
> brutal or inhumane, unconditionally, as long as he makes the right
> noises and gives the USA the prerogatives it wants (military bases,
> trading status, whatever). And, conversely, purposely pass up chances
> to remove particularly odious "enemies" because they prefer a known bad
> guy they can demonize from a distance and "contain" to the uncertainty
> of change, especially in a strategically sensitive region. Remember how
> the US hung tut-tutted the Baltic independence movements instead of
> supporting them? It's exactly the same dynamic at work here, only in a
> region which could really go up in smoke.
It seems to me that it'd be a lot more honest, and in the long run
probably a lot more humane, if the american government would just admit
that they want a bloody empire, and went out on a spree of conquest. It's
tough to imagine anything we set up on purpose turning out worse than some
of the governments we've been supporting, after all. Admittedly it would
be damned stupid to do it out in the open though, since it would almost
force China to come and kick our asses. Mind you, I fail to see why we
NEED the support of these nasty little despots. I don't think that the
privelage of having military bases or trading status or whatever is worth
the amount of money we pump into them that could be so much better spent
elsewhere. Especially on space. The sooner we start mining the asteroid
belt, the sooner we have more raw material and other such *real* riches
than we know what to do with.
> [snip]
> /Petteri
> --
> Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with
> experience. -- Andrew Welch
--
The Left Reverend Plasm...@godisdead.com
Bill Thacker
Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
>quite a while.
You're right. No excuse, as far as I can see. I think the
reality is that the American people still have a hard-on for
Ayatollah Khomeini and our leaders don't think we will accept
the idea of Iran as anything less than our worst enemy.
I think our leaders underestimate us; but sadly, not by a lot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
Director of the EAC Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Fast Cars,
and Pornography.
"Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas."
Jim Versluys, editor, The Texas Mercury
Bill Thacker
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:07:29 +0200 Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>> Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
>
>> Standard disclaimers: I'm not targeting my criticism at the American
>> people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
>> this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
>> to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
>> of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
>> world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
>> mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
>> tell me how.
>
> Ok. First head up ass part: The idea that the american public
>elected Bush jr. and his cronies. We did not. Gore won the popular
>vote. Bush won only because of our ill-concieved electorial college and
>some ballot fuckups in Florida. So when you consider blame remember that
>more americans voted for Gore than Bush.
>
>moron. What *really* makes me lose faith in america is Bush's 87%
>approval rating right now. I will be the first to admit that Bush is
>doing *FAR* better than I expected of him, but he's still doing worse than
>I would expect from pretty much any educated person. In other words I'm
>just relieved and amazed he hasn't made such an ass of himself that we've
>gotten into a nuclear war.
Now quit trying to blame Bush for the collective idiocy of our people,
Plasmatron. The American public didn't give a rat's ass whether Bush
or Gore got elected, which is why the voting was a dead heat and one
county in one state was able to decide the matter. It was a coin
toss.
Second, do you really think that Al Gore would have followed a more
enlightened policy toward Iran? Clinton never did.
Third, in the last paragraph I quoted above you basically admit that
the American people are very pleased with Bush's actions. So forget
about the election; right now, most Americans agree with the things
Bush is doing. I'm willing to bet that most Americans believe Iran
ought to be our enemy, and are glad Bush included them in his "axis of
evil."
So while it may be true that Bush is an idiot, I think we need to own
up to our collective idiocy, too.
>> (Cf.
>> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>
> That decision was of course made by Bush senior
... in order to obey the United Nations mandate that defined how
force could be used against Iraq.
>We shouldn't have gotten INTO
>that war in the first place if we weren't going to finish it.
I think Bush would have loved to finish it. I'm sure he knew the
American people would have loved to see Hussein arrested and put on
trial. And clearly America would have benefitted from installing a
US-dominated government in Iraq. And the cost of the extra campaign
would have been insignificant; a handful of American dead, a few
million bucks. But Bush also had to keep the coalition together
so it didn't turn into a holy war between Islam and civilization.
He was able to get the UN to authorize the war, but the price was
that the authorization didn't let us take out Hussein. We *did*
try to kill him with bombs, you may recall.
You're basically criticizing Bush for obeying the decision of the United
Nations instead of doing what America wants despite world opinion.
I'm a little disappointed at Petteri for his criticism; I thought
he *wanted* the US to behave more democratically in world affairs.
But if we follow the world in a stupid decision, we take the sole
blame for that decision's outcome. So I guess next time we should
just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
only be taking the blame we deserve.
Petteri Sulonen
<w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think Bush would have loved to finish it. I'm sure he knew the
> American people would have loved to see Hussein arrested and put on
> trial. And clearly America would have benefitted from installing a
> US-dominated government in Iraq. And the cost of the extra campaign
> would have been insignificant; a handful of American dead, a few
> million bucks. But Bush also had to keep the coalition together
> so it didn't turn into a holy war between Islam and civilization.
> He was able to get the UN to authorize the war, but the price was
> that the authorization didn't let us take out Hussein. We *did*
> try to kill him with bombs, you may recall.
>
> You're basically criticizing Bush for obeying the decision of the United
> Nations instead of doing what America wants despite world opinion.
> I'm a little disappointed at Petteri for his criticism; I thought
> he *wanted* the US to behave more democratically in world affairs.
> But if we follow the world in a stupid decision, we take the sole
> blame for that decision's outcome. So I guess next time we should
> just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
> only be taking the blame we deserve.
[snip]
I do want the US to behave more even-handedly (democratic is the wrong
term to apply to international relations, IMO). However, I also don't
think much of crying over spilt milk. To go counterfactual, IMO the US
should have done more (that is, anything at all) to discourage Saddam
from invading Kuwait in the first place: that way the whole mess could
have been avoided.
I think the US would have been in a very hairy situation should it have
sent its troops to march to Baghdad and take out Saddam. You're missing
one important point, though. After the Gulf War, a rebellion against
Saddam broke out. The US gave Saddam carte blanche to crush it.
Specifically, they didn't even order his helicopters grounded (outside
the southern and northern no-fly zones). Without this active conniving
by the US, the rebellion could have succeeded. With some low-key
support from the US (logistical, intelligence, equipment), the
rebellion would have had a very good chance of success indeed. If the
US had taken prisoner or destroyed the Republican Guard it had boxed
in, the odds of success for the rebellion would have been far better
still. The US *wanted* the rebellion to fail, and actively worked
towards that end. This was *wrong*; among the greatest injustices
perpetrated by the US in recent decades -- and one that cost the US a
huge amount of goodwill in the democratic movements all over the Arab
world.
The US had a perfect chance to make a change for the better without
even getting their hands dirty -- and they passed it up, for entirely
short-term and entirely selfish reasons.
I think appealing to the UN resolution or world opinion here is a
cop-out. The US adheres to UN resolutions whenever they suit it; at
other times it simply disregards them.
The Plasmatron
True. The fact that it was even close still disgusts me.
> Second, do you really think that Al Gore would have followed a more
> enlightened policy toward Iran? Clinton never did.
No, I wouldn't expect a more enlightened policy, I'd just expect less
boneheaded stupidity, like this "axis of evil" crap.
> Third, in the last paragraph I quoted above you basically admit that
> the American people are very pleased with Bush's actions. So forget
> about the election; right now, most Americans agree with the things
> Bush is doing. I'm willing to bet that most Americans believe Iran
> ought to be our enemy, and are glad Bush included them in his "axis of
> evil."
> So while it may be true that Bush is an idiot, I think we need to own
> up to our collective idiocy, too.
I concede. The american people are obviously filled with pudding
heads.
>>> (Cf.
>>> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>>
>> That decision was of course made by Bush senior
> ... in order to obey the United Nations mandate that defined how
> force could be used against Iraq.
Then we should have disobeyed such an inhumane and evil mandate.
>>We shouldn't have gotten INTO
>>that war in the first place if we weren't going to finish it.
> I think Bush would have loved to finish it. I'm sure he knew the
Shame he didn't have the balls then.
> American people would have loved to see Hussein arrested and put on
> trial. And clearly America would have benefitted from installing a
> US-dominated government in Iraq. And the cost of the extra campaign
My understanding is that's what we *had* in Iraq until we went to war
over it's invasion of Kuwait. As I recall Hussain waited until he thought
he had permission from the US government before he invaded. The reason to
kill him is not so much that he deserved to die, as that there was no
other safe option after we'd forced him to be an enemy. After all, wasn't
Iraq the one we were supporting in the Iran-Iraq war? To this day I can't
help wondering if the whole thing was manufactured to boost Bush senior's
popularity.
> would have been insignificant; a handful of American dead, a few
> million bucks. But Bush also had to keep the coalition together
> so it didn't turn into a holy war between Islam and civilization.
> He was able to get the UN to authorize the war, but the price was
> that the authorization didn't let us take out Hussein. We *did*
> try to kill him with bombs, you may recall.
We should have tried harder if we were going to do it at all. Mind
you I don't fully see why we had to meddle in that one at all.
> You're basically criticizing Bush for obeying the decision of the United
> Nations instead of doing what America wants despite world opinion.
If that is the case, then so be it.
> I'm a little disappointed at Petteri for his criticism; I thought
> he *wanted* the US to behave more democratically in world affairs.
> But if we follow the world in a stupid decision, we take the sole
> blame for that decision's outcome. So I guess next time we should
Then you must admit I am *right* to be critisizing him for following
such a stupid decision, even if it wasn't our own stupidity. It doesn't
matter who came up with the idea, it was still bloody stupid. The fact
that it originated elsewhere simply shows that america doesn't have a
monopoly on pudding-heads.
> just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
> only be taking the blame we deserve.
Indeed. Though the blame is deserved doing what others believed we
should do instead of what's right.
Lord Calvert
>Saddam broke out. The US gave Saddam carte blanche to crush it.
>Specifically, they didn't even order his helicopters grounded (outside
>the southern and northern no-fly zones).
And the Air Force generals like Buster Glosson as well as 24th Infantry
Division commander Barry McCaffrey went wholly ballistic. Many of them,
including McCaffrey, resigned because they thought Bush, Cheney and Powell had
betrayed the country with the mission left unfulfilled (the destruction of the
Republican Guard), which of course they did. Bush encouraged the revolts of the
Kurds and the Shiites and then left them to be exterminated. The result was
over 150,000 dead.
The decision to prop up Hussein would make Cheney a multi-millionaire with
Haliburton.
It is nice to see that someone else has read Gordon and Trainor's "The
General's War." A magnificent book on the Gulf War and one that certainly
paints the Bush adminstration as wholly self-serving and incompetent...just
like the current Bush adminstration.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." - Robert Anton
Wilson
Petteri Sulonen
<forl...@aol.complicated> wrote:
> >After the Gulf War, a rebellion against
> >Saddam broke out. The US gave Saddam carte blanche to crush it.
> >Specifically, they didn't even order his helicopters grounded (outside
> >the southern and northern no-fly zones).
>
> And the Air Force generals like Buster Glosson as well as 24th Infantry
> Division commander Barry McCaffrey went wholly ballistic. Many of them,
> including McCaffrey, resigned because they thought Bush, Cheney and Powell had
> betrayed the country with the mission left unfulfilled (the destruction of the
> Republican Guard), which of course they did. Bush encouraged the revolts of
> the
> Kurds and the Shiites and then left them to be exterminated. The result was
> over 150,000 dead.
>
> The decision to prop up Hussein would make Cheney a multi-millionaire with
> Haliburton.
>
> It is nice to see that someone else has read Gordon and Trainor's "The
> General's War." A magnificent book on the Gulf War and one that certainly
> paints the Bush adminstration as wholly self-serving and incompetent...just
> like the current Bush adminstration.
If you're referring to me, I'm afraid I haven't read that book. I
haven't even studied the Gulf War in great detail; my information comes
from fairly widely-published (but mostly respectable) sources -- a
bunch of books on recent international relations, some memoirs, and a
good many media articles, both in the general and academic press. I
couldn't actually name a single source for my outline -- if I've made
mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
Bored With the Boring Again
plasmatron@godis*bullshit*dead.com wrote:
side benefit of asteroid mining: A source of rocks we could drop on people
who piss us off.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
======
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
======
"Hey, who needs a conscience when jeezuz died for our sins?"
-- Ahriman
====
Awarded "Brazen Sinner Medal First Class" 2002-02-09 by Georgann Chenault
Mark Whickman
"Bored With the Boring Again" <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:4F8EF1BC5404CB45.CFFCEA98...@lp.airnews.net...
Have to be very accurate and use precision shaped rocks.
Daneel
<snip>
> Item: The US and Iran
>
> Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
> help they can get from the West.
More, the democratic elements winning out would be a symbol of
the failure of fundamentalism across the Muslim world, the best
weapon against fundamentalism I can think of.
> Now, what does the US do?
>
> It labels Iran as a member of the "axis of evil", hints at possible
> military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
> supporting or sheltering Al-Qaeda members, and does all it can to slap
> it in the face. It is well known to the US leadership that this can
> only strengthen the hard-liners. It seems that yet again the US prefers
> the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>
> This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
> it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
> impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
> democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
> world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
> policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
> problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
>
> In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
> quite a while.
Wait until we learn what kind of help troops they arm up in Iraq...
bye
Daneel [aa #323 | U of E student #000666]
**********************************************************************
What's wrong with nationalism?
Truth can't depend on one's ancestry!
----------<SPAM BAIT>----------
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com u...@ftc.gov
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@mindspring.net
abuse-n...@uu.net ab...@dialsprint.net ab...@earthlink.com
postm...@attglobal.net ab...@bellsouth.net ab...@sympatico.ca
Lord Calvert
>> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
>> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
>> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
>> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
>> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
>> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
>> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
>> help they can get from the West.
>
>More, the democratic elements winning out would be a symbol of
>the failure of fundamentalism across the Muslim world, the best
>weapon against fundamentalism I can think of.
I dunno...Turkey has had a strongly secular government since Kemal Attaturk. It
doesn't seem that Turkey's example has had that great deal of an effect on its
Muslim neighbors Iraq, Iran and Syria nor on the rest of the Muslim world.
The Plasmatron
Oh baby YEA! The belters will rule the solar system in case of a
war. I mean, how tough would it be to knock another "dinosaur
killer" asteroid out of orbit so it'll hit the Earth? Hell, Just tossing
rocks from the moon kicks all ass over nuclear weapons! The country that
owns the moon owns the planet. Any government that doesn't realise this
is fucking stupid. So, with that in mind WHY THE FUCKING HELL ISN'T
>>>ANYONE<<< TRYING TO SET UP A FUCKING MOON BASE?! In a situation where
the only sane response seems to be to try your damndest to be the first
because second place means being ruled over no one is even TRYING?! What
the fuck is up with this? Truly I weep for humanity.
Daneel
> >> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
> >> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
> >> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
> >> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
> >> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
> >> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
> >> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
> >> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
> >> help they can get from the West.
> >
> >More, the democratic elements winning out would be a symbol of
> >the failure of fundamentalism across the Muslim world, the best
> >weapon against fundamentalism I can think of.
>
> I dunno...Turkey has had a strongly secular government since Kemal Attaturk. It
> doesn't seem that Turkey's example has had that great deal of an effect on its
> Muslim neighbors Iraq, Iran and Syria nor on the rest of the Muslim world.
Yeah, but Atatürk didn't replace fundies, he replaced an (in the eyes
of fundies) already rotten ahlf-secular monarchy.
BTW, it's good to see you back!
maff
Patten lays into Bush's America
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,647542,00.html
>
> /Petteri
Petteri Sulonen
<forl...@aol.complicated> wrote:
> >> The USA has never forgiven the Islamic Revolution, which kicked out the
> >> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
> >> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
> >> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
> >> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
> >> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
> >> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
> >> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
> >> help they can get from the West.
> >
> >More, the democratic elements winning out would be a symbol of
> >the failure of fundamentalism across the Muslim world, the best
> >weapon against fundamentalism I can think of.
>
> I dunno...Turkey has had a strongly secular government since Kemal Attaturk.
> It
> doesn't seem that Turkey's example has had that great deal of an effect on its
> Muslim neighbors Iraq, Iran and Syria nor on the rest of the Muslim world.
Two points.
(1) Iraq and Syria are quite secular dictatorships. The late Hafez
al-Asad and his son Bashar are actually Alawites, members of a sect
considered heretical by most Sunnites, especially the integrist kind.
Saddam's platform is the Ba'ath, an "Arab socialist" movement,
combining pan-Arabism with socialism, although nowadays it doesn't have
a great deal to do with either. The relationship between Muslim
integrists and these governments is uneasy at best, downright hostile
at worst. Both dictators are just the kinds of people Mr. Bin Laden
would most like to see go. If they are toppled, it's as likely as not
that the people replacing them are more like Bin Laden than Lech
Walesa. Especially now that the USA has done all that it can to
discredit the democratic opposition in the eyes of the populace: the
biggest perceived alternative to the secular dictatorships is Islamic
rule.
(2) Iran is *the* leading light of Islamism. The Islamic Revolution
was the starting-shot that made political Islam credible all over the
world. If Iran should give up its theocracy and go secular, political
Islamism would suffer its biggest loss yet: the psychological impact
would be much like the impact of the fall of the Soviet Union on
Communism.
Bill Thacker
Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>In article <a4u4p9$a...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>, Bill Thacker
><w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Nations instead of doing what America wants despite world opinion.
>> I'm a little disappointed at Petteri for his criticism; I thought
>> he *wanted* the US to behave more democratically in world affairs.
>> But if we follow the world in a stupid decision, we take the sole
>> blame for that decision's outcome. So I guess next time we should
>> just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
>> only be taking the blame we deserve.
>
>[snip]
>
>I do want the US to behave more even-handedly (democratic is the wrong
>term to apply to international relations, IMO). However, I also don't
>think much of crying over spilt milk. To go counterfactual, IMO the US
>should have done more (that is, anything at all) to discourage Saddam
>from invading Kuwait in the first place: that way the whole mess could
>have been avoided.
No argument there. I own up to the fact that we created him, and
the allegation that we gave him some kind of green light to invade
Kuwait. Our bad.
>I think the US would have been in a very hairy situation should it have
>sent its troops to march to Baghdad and take out Saddam. You're missing
>one important point, though. After the Gulf War, a rebellion against
>Saddam broke out. The US gave Saddam carte blanche to crush it.
Meaning we did nothing - which again was exactly what the UN
authorized. Why aren't you criticizing the UN for these decisions?
If the UN had said, "You know, Hussein really is an evil bastard,
we're resolved to removing him from power," America would have been
there in nothing flat. The American people had great sympathy for
the Kurds, you know; it would have been very popular back home
for Bush to support them.
>Specifically, they didn't even order his helicopters grounded (outside
>the southern and northern no-fly zones). Without this active conniving
>by the US, the rebellion could have succeeded. With some low-key
>support from the US (logistical, intelligence, equipment), the
>rebellion would have had a very good chance of success indeed.
(Active conniving? We did nothing. If you want to call that "tacit
approval" or "passive encouragement," OK, but "active conniving?")
In other words, you think that America should have done something
underhanded to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation
in direct violation of UN resolutions. We should have playing into
the exact stereotype that makes people hate our foreign policy, and
us - the exact behavior that causes frustrated people to fly jumbo
jets into our skyscrapers. Yet every time we do that, you slap our
hands and tell us we're bad for not being team players.
Petteri, I'm open to hearing criticism of the US. I know our
foreign policy is inconsistent and self-serving. And I deeply
respect your thinking and your opinion.
But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
Finland could have sent some troops to support the Kurds and arrest
Hussein. He sure couldn't have stopped you, and the US wouldn't
have stopped you, either.
>If the
>US had taken prisoner or destroyed the Republican Guard it had boxed
>in, the odds of success for the rebellion would have been far better
>still.
You know, there were British and French troops in that attack, too.
I didn't see them racing ahead to "do the right thing". Technically
we weren't even supposed to send units into Iraq, according to the
UN mandate, except to force the release of Kuwait. We did exactly
that. If you wanted the Republican Guard eliminated, why wasn't
the Finnish delegate to the UN jumping up and demanding a
resolution to authorize that action?
>The US *wanted* the rebellion to fail, and actively worked
>towards that end.
"Active?" We did nothing at all. Though yes, we did want the
rebellion to fail, because we knew a Kurdish uprising would spill
over into Turkey, causing a disruption within the borders of one of
our NATO allies. I'm pretty sure it was our European allies who
were encouraging us to stand by. I notice none of them did
anything to help the rebellion, either. Nor do I recall the
Finnish nation screaming in protest, "We beseech the US to
intervene to help the rebels."
Your judgement sure is keen and sure in hindsight, though.
>I think appealing to the UN resolution or world opinion here is a
>cop-out. The US adheres to UN resolutions whenever they suit it; at
>other times it simply disregards them.
You can't have it both ways, Petteri. Either criticize us for
obeying the UN, or criticize us for following our own judgement
despite them. How do you want us to behave?
You've complained for decades that America's foreign policy is
riddled with inconsistencies. Guess what - so it yours. You
tell us you want us to cooperate with the UN, and when we do
you blame us for not ignoring the UN and doing the right thing.
If you want us to be team players, then dammit, don't criticize us
for doing what the coach ordered.
Bill Thacker
>On 19 Feb 2002 18:16:09 GMT Bill Thacker <w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Bush would have loved to finish it. I'm sure he knew the
>
> Shame he didn't have the balls then.
You don't understand. Bush Sr. had huge balls. The American people
wanted Saddam's head on a pike, and he told them, "No, we're going to
do what the UN says." That took guts; the easy, cowardly thing to
do would have been to tell the soldiers, "Folks, the American people
will love me if tomorrow's newspaper features a photo of Hussein's
bullet-ridden corpse, so I'm ordering you all to attack Baghdad."
Well, I guess that might have had one downside. All the Moslem
nations would have probably pulled out of the alliance, Saudi
Arabia would have told us to get the hell off their property,
and Israel would probably have ended up nuking someone. At least,
that's what everyone thought at the time.
>> I'm a little disappointed at Petteri for his criticism; I thought
>> he *wanted* the US to behave more democratically in world affairs.
>> But if we follow the world in a stupid decision, we take the sole
>> blame for that decision's outcome. So I guess next time we should
>
> Then you must admit I am *right* to be critisizing him for following
>such a stupid decision, even if it wasn't our own stupidity.
Yes, you're rigth. It was a stupid decision.
> It doesn't
>matter who came up with the idea, it was still bloody stupid. The fact
>that it originated elsewhere simply shows that america doesn't have a
>monopoly on pudding-heads.
Here's the question. When the UN passes a resolution, should America
obey it even if we think the issue should be handled differently?
Or do we ignore it and do what we think is right?
>> just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
>> only be taking the blame we deserve.
>
> Indeed. Though the blame is deserved doing what others believed we
>should do instead of what's right.
Then the UN has no value. Its collective judgements are crap and
have no moral authority. We should just ignore it. Do you
agree?
Petteri Sulonen
<w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
You didn't do nothing. You actively encouraged the rebellion, then
abandoned it.
The main reason I'm not criticizing the UN is because the UN isn't a
unified body. It merely expresses whatever consensus has been cobbled
together by the security council.
I'm going to have to look into this a bit more; I'm not familiar with
the discussions in the UN preceding the Gulf War. I'm under the
impression that the US marching into Baghdad would probably not have
gone down well. However, I'm pretty sure that supporting the rebellion
would not have been less popular than abandoning it.
> If the UN had said, "You know, Hussein really is an evil bastard,
> we're resolved to removing him from power," America would have been
> there in nothing flat. The American people had great sympathy for
> the Kurds, you know; it would have been very popular back home
> for Bush to support them.
...and the UN wouldn't have done anything to stop him either.
Why do you think the US didn't support the rebellion? Because the UN
didn't ask them to? Give me a break. The US only follows UN resolutions
when it feels like it.
> >Specifically, they didn't even order his helicopters grounded (outside
> >the southern and northern no-fly zones). Without this active conniving
> >by the US, the rebellion could have succeeded. With some low-key
> >support from the US (logistical, intelligence, equipment), the
> >rebellion would have had a very good chance of success indeed.
>
> (Active conniving? We did nothing. If you want to call that "tacit
> approval" or "passive encouragement," OK, but "active conniving?")
You actively encouraged the rebellion. You distributed leaflets saying
that the US is behind you. Then you abandonded them. This does
constitute active conniving.
> In other words, you think that America should have done something
> underhanded to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation
> in direct violation of UN resolutions.
Hm. Aren't you sounding a teensy bit sanctimonious here?
> We should have playing into
> the exact stereotype that makes people hate our foreign policy, and
> us - the exact behavior that causes frustrated people to fly jumbo
> jets into our skyscrapers. Yet every time we do that, you slap our
> hands and tell us we're bad for not being team players.
>
> Petteri, I'm open to hearing criticism of the US. I know our
> foreign policy is inconsistent and self-serving. And I deeply
> respect your thinking and your opinion.
>
> But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
> the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
> us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
> nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
> when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
You probably believe the Korean war was a UN war too. Christ indeed.
> Finland could have sent some troops to support the Kurds and arrest
> Hussein. He sure couldn't have stopped you, and the US wouldn't
> have stopped you, either.
Yeah, I'm sure the Finnish standing army of 20000 would've done a lot
of good against Saddam's 150000.
> >If the
> >US had taken prisoner or destroyed the Republican Guard it had boxed
> >in, the odds of success for the rebellion would have been far better
> >still.
>
> You know, there were British and French troops in that attack, too.
> I didn't see them racing ahead to "do the right thing".
Who was their supreme commander?
> Technically
> we weren't even supposed to send units into Iraq, according to the
> UN mandate, except to force the release of Kuwait. We did exactly
> that. If you wanted the Republican Guard eliminated, why wasn't
> the Finnish delegate to the UN jumping up and demanding a
> resolution to authorize that action?
Well, I probably would have, if I was the Finnish delegate. However, at
the time I was serving in the Finnish army.
> >The US *wanted* the rebellion to fail, and actively worked
> >towards that end.
>
> "Active?" We did nothing at all.
No, you didn't. See above.
> Though yes, we did want the
> rebellion to fail, because we knew a Kurdish uprising would spill
> over into Turkey, causing a disruption within the borders of one of
> our NATO allies.
OK, at least you are aware of the real reasons for the US abandonment
of the rebellion, instead of spouting this sanctimonious "we were only
playing by the rules" claptrap.
How do you feel about the US encouraging the rebellion in the first
place?
> I'm pretty sure it was our European allies who
> were encouraging us to stand by. I notice none of them did
> anything to help the rebellion, either. Nor do I recall the
> Finnish nation screaming in protest, "We beseech the US to
> intervene to help the rebels."
>
> Your judgement sure is keen and sure in hindsight, though.
Hindsight is always clearer, more's the pity. However, although you
can't change things, you can learn from them. This was why I brought up
Iraq in the first place.
Frankly, I find this kind of discussion pretty pointless. The US did
what it did, for reasons you recognize to be selfish (and I believe to
be extremely short-sighted). My point is that now we can see that
things turned out awfully badly for everyone concerned -- and the US is
doing the exact same thing all over again.
> >I think appealing to the UN resolution or world opinion here is a
> >cop-out. The US adheres to UN resolutions whenever they suit it; at
> >other times it simply disregards them.
>
> You can't have it both ways, Petteri. Either criticize us for
> obeying the UN, or criticize us for following our own judgement
> despite them. How do you want us to behave?
If you acted just a tiny bit less short-sightedly and with just a tiny
bit of respect for the values which you supposedly represent, I'd be
ecstatic.
> You've complained for decades that America's foreign policy is
> riddled with inconsistencies. Guess what - so it yours. You
> tell us you want us to cooperate with the UN, and when we do
> you blame us for not ignoring the UN and doing the right thing.
>
> If you want us to be team players, then dammit, don't criticize us
> for doing what the coach ordered.
I think you're going into the woods in your argument in one very
important point. You speak of the UN as if it was something external
that could or does "order" the US to do things. This is much the same
attitude many of you have towards your government: it's an external
"them". Guess what, Bill: the UN isn't a "them". It's _you_. The UN
doesn't have powers to wage war. It doesn't have an army. All it has is
a small amount of moral authority, inasmuch as it represents world
opinion. In the case of the Gulf War (or, for example, the Korean War),
it served as a convenient fig-leaf for an American operation, with
token forces from allied countries. The US only follows UN resolutions
when it is convenient for it to do so. I think it's dishonest to say
"hey, we were only doing what the coach said" if a UN resolution
happens to suit US policy. If the US just once followed a UN resolution
that was _not_ to its liking, you would sound a good deal less
hypocritical.
Lord Calvert
>But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
>the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
>us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
>nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
>when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
Bill, I think you're missing the major point. The Bush administration's
objective was not to overthrow Saddam Hussein...it was to destroy the
Republican Guard. Destroying the IRG was certainly within the mandate of the UN
and it was stated US policy. That mission failed because Bush, Cheney and
Powell lost their nerve. It was their intention not to overthrow Saddam
directly but to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to do so without help.
The destruction of the IRG would have given them the opportunity because it
would have deprived Saddam of the military forces that were personally loyal to
him.
The US 24th Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions had the IRG bottled up around
Basra and the IRG was about to be completely broken. What happened is that at
the cease fire negotiations the Iraqis, represented by Lt. General Sala Abud
Mahmoud, asked if they could retain their attack and transport helicopters. The
adminstration foolishly said yes. Almost immediately the IRG used those
helicopters to transport the remnants of 4 IRG divisions to Kurdistan where
they began the Kurdish genocides. When US and British troops withdrew from
southern Iraq they redeployed and repeated the process with the southern
Shiites. With the two biggest threats to Saddam's power now eliminated his
position was forever secure...and all thanks to Bush, Cheney, Powell and
Schwartzkopf because they provided Saddam the precise tools he needed to do it.
The reaction among the lower ranking US generals was almost virtual revolt,
particularly among the Air Force generals in the Gulf and especially theatre
Air Force commander Buster Glosson and 24th Infantry Division commander Barry
McCaffrey. McCaffrey would resign because he thought that Bush and the
adminstration had betrayed the army and the country...and McCaffrey was right.
Bush did betray the Army and the country by letting his stated mission
deliberately go unfulfilled.
Following excerpt is taken from "The General's War" by General Bernard Trainor
and Michael Gordon:
In a dilapidated trailer off of Highway 8, Mehdy Nathil, a Shiite who had fled
from Saddam Hussein's troops, said "Bush told us to revolt against Saddam. We
revolt against Saddam. But where is Bush? Where is he?"
------------------
It is obvious where Bush was...he murdered them just as deliberately as if he
had pulled the trigger himself. He deliberately abandoned the people who he
encouraged to revolt and the result was that they were massacred. 150,000
civilian dead because Bush lost his nerve.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
"We never did have a plan to terminate the war." - Gordon Brown, CENTCOM's
chief foreign policy officer during the Gulf War.
Daneel
> Bill Thacker wrote:
> >But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
> >the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
> >us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
> >nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
> >when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
>
> Bill, I think you're missing the major point. The Bush administration's
> objective was not to overthrow Saddam Hussein...it was to destroy the
> Republican Guard. Destroying the IRG was certainly within the mandate of the UN
As an additional point, had there been a need for operations beyond
the UN mandate to help the revolution or defend the population, the
USA could have proposed a mandate extension in the UN Security
Council, pronto. (Underlining Petteri's point about the UN being 'us'.)
The Plasmatron
Fuck 'em. We never should have gone into the gulf in the first place.
Of course, we would have done that in any event, since americans love war,
which is unfortunate.
>>> just follow our own instincts; at least if it goes bad, we'll
>>> only be taking the blame we deserve.
>>
>> Indeed. Though the blame is deserved doing what others believed we
>>should do instead of what's right.
> Then the UN has no value. Its collective judgements are crap and
> have no moral authority. We should just ignore it. Do you
> agree?
It is usefull for trying to avoid wars in the frist place. Once
they're started then I would say it rapidly declines in value. Having a
bunch of peacemongers try to properly run a war is not NEAR as usefull as
having a bunch of peacemongers try to avoid one in the first place. The
biggest problem with the UN is that like any other human venture it is
filled with pudding-heads. I definately believe that we should do what is
right rather than what is reccomended by the UN, but on the other hand I
sure as hell don't trust our current president to have any better idea of
what is right than the UN. He seems like more of a pudding head than them
to be honest. Of course, you'd think Bush sr. could have at least helped
out the rebellion like he promised, or at least not made the promise in
the first place, but after all Baby Bush had to get his brains and morals
from somewhere, didn't he?
Adelphos
<Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
>
How can you criticize the US while you are defend the UN?
<snip>
>It labels Iran as a member of the "axis of evil", hints at possible
>military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
>
The "Axis of evil" would be defined in the UN Charter, along with the
procedures in dealing with the offending nation.
<snip>
>In short, it is one of the wrongest policies the US has pursued for a
>quite a while.
>
The US is only taking advantages of the loop hole it enjoys as being a
permanent Security Council member.
-Regards
-David
...when people would sit around entertaining one another
with their personal tales and opinions....
Andrew Muir
If I may butt in for a brief moment....
> I'm going to have to look into this a bit more; I'm not familiar with
> the discussions in the UN preceding the Gulf War. I'm under the
> impression that the US marching into Baghdad would probably not have
> gone down well. However, I'm pretty sure that supporting the rebellion
> would not have been less popular than abandoning it.
When Kuwait was invaded, the US managed to get the Security Council to
invoke Chapter VII of the UN charter for only the second time in history
(the first being Korea). This is the article that compels all members to
resist any aggression against a member nation with military force. However,
from the machinations surrounding the invoking of the article (which is
contentious in itself), it was really an image thing - it 'looked good' for
the US and Britain to have the official backing of the Security Council
(because there isn't an enforcement mechanism for the article). In fact,
before it was invoked, there was extensive diplomatic wrangling with the
Russians and Chinese over whether it COULD be invoked without them using
their veto (there was horse-trading involved; the exact compromise escapes
me at the moment).
Once that had been gained, the entire thing then rested on the US to
organise the war and decide where the goals were. The UN played no
meaningful role in prosecuting the war.
If you want a really close look at it, I'd suggest Rosmary Righter's "Utopia
Lost: The United Nations and the New World Order" (1995). It details the
exact sequence of events very nicely.
> > But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
> > the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
> > us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
> > nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
> > when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
>
> You probably believe the Korean war was a UN war too. Christ indeed.
They are 'UN' wars in name only, in reality. The UN cannot realistically
force any nation to do anything (even under the terms of its own charter).
Almost every large nation (the USSR, China, USA, Britain etc...) has a
history of using the UN to look as if they are acting with a global
consensus, when it suits. In effect, the reality is that its up to a
superpower to provide the troops and plan the war, and it doesn't happen
unless the Superpower WANTS it to happen.
[snip]
> I think you're going into the woods in your argument in one very
> important point. You speak of the UN as if it was something external
> that could or does "order" the US to do things. This is much the same
> attitude many of you have towards your government: it's an external
> "them". Guess what, Bill: the UN isn't a "them". It's _you_. The UN
> doesn't have powers to wage war. It doesn't have an army.
Althought, ironically enough, the provision for it to have one (in the form
of a UN Military Staff Council) was provided for by the Charter's authors.
The last people to bring it up were actually the Soviets, in the late 1980s,
but the US vetoed the idea on the grounds that it didn't want US troops put
under the command of someone it didn't like (in effect; even if the language
was more diplomatically worded).
Andrew Muir
Bill Thacker
Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@seittipaja.spambuster.fi> wrote:
>In article <a50tbu$6...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, Bill Thacker
><w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> >one important point, though. After the Gulf War, a rebellion against
>> >Saddam broke out. The US gave Saddam carte blanche to crush it.
>>
>> Meaning we did nothing - which again was exactly what the UN
>> authorized. Why aren't you criticizing the UN for these decisions?
>
>You didn't do nothing. You actively encouraged the rebellion, then
>abandoned it.
I can recall some public statements of support for "anyone willing to
bring down Hussein from within," much as we made about Milosevic
during the Kosovo conflict. I don't recall any promises to aid
them. Maybe I've forgotten something?
>Why do you think the US didn't support the rebellion? Because the UN
>didn't ask them to? Give me a break. The US only follows UN resolutions
>when it feels like it.
Here again you give me good cause not to pay attention to the UN.
If we disobey their wishes, we're acting selfishly. If we obey
their wishes, we're acting selfishly. Since you assume all our
actions are selfish, we may as well only take selfish actions.
That way we, at least, will be happy.
The big issue was the Turkish Kurds; I'm certain Turkey wanted us
to stay out of that fight, and they're a NATO member.
The secondary issue was the perception among the Islamic nations that
this was a war against Islam. We took extreme cares to defuse that;
bluntly, we could have done the job quicker without all those Yemeni
and Saudi troops, but we had them there to show that the Islamic
nations were also mad at Iraq. A "second attack" on Iraq would have
fueled that paranoia.
(Of course, what's that to Finland, huh? It's not like Islamic
terrorists would have been attacking *you* in reprisal.)
>You actively encouraged the rebellion. You distributed leaflets saying
>that the US is behind you. Then you abandonded them. This does
>constitute active conniving.
OK, I won't argue the point. One would think that a nation could do
this without being obligated to send in the Marines, but apparently
not. I admit we did wrong there by not going far enough.
>> In other words, you think that America should have done something
>> underhanded to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation
>> in direct violation of UN resolutions.
>
>Hm. Aren't you sounding a teensy bit sanctimonious here?
If so, my apologies - I meant to sound incredibly sanctimonious. :-)
This is - is it not? - the usual complaint about America arming
rebels in some country. Yet you wanted us to do it in this case?
I'm getting mixed signals here.
>> Petteri, I'm open to hearing criticism of the US. I know our
>> foreign policy is inconsistent and self-serving. And I deeply
>> respect your thinking and your opinion.
>>
>> But damn... we played the Gulf War exactly by the rules the rest of
>> the world has been hollering for us to obey, and where'd it get
>> us? It was a UN war, fought by a coalition of troops from a dozen
>> nations; they were UN sanctions, enforced by UN committees. And
>> when it didn't work, it's all America's fault. Christ.
>
>You probably believe the Korean war was a UN war too. Christ indeed.
OK, then. Since we did somethign wrong 50 years ago, everything we do
is wrong. Tell me, Petteri, how exactly can we please you? It seems
that any action we take will be dismissed as selfish - obviously
selfish if it benefits us, or underhandedly selfish if it doesn't
seem to benefit us. If the UN supports us it's because we bullied
them into us, and if they don't it's because they're a righteous
organization expressing world opinion. If we meddle with another
country's politics we're imperialists, and if we don't we're accused
of not standing up for our values.
Indeed, the only thing I recall you praising us for was the Marshall
Plan. Is it that simple - we're nice as long as we're sending free
money?
Tell me, man. How do we make you happy? We're obviously incompetent,
selfish, greedy, stupid clods, so spell it out, step by step. Maybe
use the war on terrorism to illustrate the point. But don't give me
vague notions like "support your values" and "stop being selfish",
I want specific actions that we can do so that you will say without
reservation that we did the right thing.
>OK, at least you are aware of the real reasons for the US abandonment
>of the rebellion, instead of spouting this sanctimonious "we were only
>playing by the rules" claptrap.
Hey... we did play by the rules. Maybe we'd have tried to get a
different UN take on the Kurdish uprising if it weren't for our
Turkish allies, but we *are* allowed *some* self-interest, right?
Unless you show me that Finland sought UN support for the rebels,
your country is just as guilty as mine for not helping them (though
I guess you retain the moral high ground, in that you wouldn't have
encouraged them to rebel in the first place.)
>How do you feel about the US encouraging the rebellion in the first
>place?
At the time it seemed right. In retrospect we should have kept our
mouths shut. In deeper retrospect, we should have made a deal with
Hussein to let him keep Kuwait and as much of Saudi Arabia as he
could occupy if he'd give us oil at 5% off the OPEC rate, and let
the Middle East nations worry about Hussein's armory. The world
wouldn't think any less of us than they do now, that's for sure, and
I'd be getting gasoline a nickel cheaper.
>I think you're going into the woods in your argument in one very
>important point. You speak of the UN as if it was something external
>that could or does "order" the US to do things. This is much the same
>attitude many of you have towards your government: it's an external
>"them". Guess what, Bill: the UN isn't a "them". It's _you_.
Not anymore, as far as I'm concerned. I see no way that we can
benefit from working with the UN. It's just a tool for getting
American lives and resources spent on behalf of everyone else.
Bring on that trade war - we taught Europe everything it knows
about capitalism, and we'll kick their collective ass.
>If the US just once followed a UN resolution
>that was _not_ to its liking, you would sound a good deal less
>hypocritical.
But that's my point, Petteri. By not conquering Baghdad, by not
bringing back Hussein for trial, Pres. Bush did something that
really hurt his popularity. We walked away from that war frustrated,
and I ask myself "why?" Why didn't we do the selfish thing and
take out Hussein, as the American people were clamoring for?
I can't find any answer to that except, "Because we wanted to
work through the UN, and the UN wouldn't authorize that."
Honest, Petteri - cross my heart and hope to die - I can't see
any other explanation.
Yeah, maybe we liked the UN resolution for other reasons, like
that it protected us from a combined Islamic holy war. But we did
follow the rules, and if that doesn't earn us some respect, the rules
are pointless.
What's your answer to that question? Why do you think we left
Hussein in power?
Bill Thacker
Bill Thacker <w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote stuff like:
>(Of course, what's that to Finland, huh? It's not like Islamic
>terrorists would have been attacking *you* in reprisal.)
and
>Indeed, the only thing I recall you praising us for was the Marshall
>Plan. Is it that simple - we're nice as long as we're sending free
>money?
To Petteri and other readers, I apologize for losing my temper.
I stand by my point - nothing America can do will change the world's
opinion of us, because the world is a fickle judge - but it was
wrong of me to indulge in these cheap shots.
Petteri Sulonen
<w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote:
> In article <a53hp3$p...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>,
> Bill Thacker <w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote stuff like:
>
> >(Of course, what's that to Finland, huh? It's not like Islamic
> >terrorists would have been attacking *you* in reprisal.)
>
> and
>
> >Indeed, the only thing I recall you praising us for was the Marshall
> >Plan. Is it that simple - we're nice as long as we're sending free
> >money?
>
> To Petteri and other readers, I apologize for losing my temper.
> I stand by my point - nothing America can do will change the world's
> opinion of us, because the world is a fickle judge - but it was
> wrong of me to indulge in these cheap shots.
Apology accepted, and I apologize in turn for the cheap shots I took.
You actually have a point; I do criticize the US where I'm silent
about, say, the UK. This is because the freedom of movement of the US
is far greater than that of the UK; in the end, UK foreign policy
doesn't matter that much, whereas US foreign policy is life and death
(literally) to a great many people.
I'm feeling terribly tired right now, due to a number of things. I
might get back to this after my vacation... about a month from now.
BTW, I did praise the US for taking a more involved and cooperative
role in the UN since 9/11. For the record, here are some good things
the US has done since WW2, IMO:
o Saved Western Europe from Soviet aggression through intervention and
support in the War and Marshall aid and constant military presence
afterwards.
o Bankrupted the Soviet Union under Brezhnev through forcing
ever-higher military spending. Believe it or not, I think this turned
out to be a very good thing, although I doubt Reagan actually planned
it this way.
o Gave Mikhail Gorbachev the freedom of movement in foreign policy
that he needed to get perestroika going, which ultimately led to the
collapse of the Soviet Union. For this, Reagan's administration
deserves full credit.
o Intervened in the Balkans to end the genocidal war there, where
Europe was too wimpy to do anything, and provided a stabilizing
presence afterwards.
o Under Clinton, did your honest best to broker a deal in the Middle
East. It wasn't good enough, but President Clinton sure as hell tried.
It turned out badly, but I have to raise my hat to the effort.
My criticism of US foreign policy is aimed primarily at US relations
with non-European countries in general and the Middle East in
particular. As I mentioned, my intention was to bring to focus some of
the things that cause resentment and hate of the US. The fact is that
the US is none too popular in the Islamic world. Therefore, my points
have dwelt in particular on that. The fact is also that there are very
good reasons for the unpopularity of the US there.
Please, Bill and others, don't take this personally. I'm not of the
"whatever the US does must be wrong" school of thought. However, I *do*
think that the US, especially but certainly not exclusively under Bush
Jr., acts in a shockingly short-sighted and dangerous manner, and that
the way these actions are seen is not well reported in the US media.
And I *try* to be fair in my criticism.
As to your point... I don't know. I'm sure the US will raise *some*
resentment no matter what it does. However, I do think attitudes would
change if its politics changed. This would take a lot of time. In
particular the Arab and Islamic world (excluding a handful of mostly
dictatorial and totally corrupt regimes) has been royally screwed over
by the US for fifty years. This experience won't be erased overnight.
Bin Laden didn't spring out of a vacuum. You cooked this soup. Now it's
up to you to eat it -- or try to throw it out and cook it again, better
this time around.
jwk
> Here's another post in my "series" critiquing US foreign policy.
>
> people (except to the degree that it elected the goverment pursuing
> this policy), and I don't hate Americans or America and am not trying
> to get anyone else to hate them either. My purpose is to point out some
> of the issues that cause resentment and anger towards America in the
> world, as it seems to me that this resentment and anger is a bit of a
> mystery to many of them. If you think I have my head up my ass, please
> tell me how.
>
> Item: The US and Iran
>
> Iran is one of the largest and most developed Middle Eastern countries.
> dictatorial and unpopular Shah Reza Pehlevi and his truly fearsome
> Savak, and replaced it with another dictatorial and brutal, although
> more popular regime. In the recent years Iranian society has shown
> strong signs of evolution towards a more open society. President
> Mohammed Khatami enjoys truly amazing popularity ratings, and he
> represents the trend away from theocracy. The moderate and democratic
> elements in Iranian society and the Iranian government need all the
> help they can get from the West.
>
>
> military action against it, makes unsupported accusations of Iran
> it in the face. It is well known to the US leadership that this can
> only strengthen the hard-liners. It seems that yet again the US prefers
> the devil it knows to an "unbalancing" improvement in the region. (Cf.
> the US decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.)
>
> This policy is immoral, short-sighted, and counter-productive. At worst
> it will push back the democratization of Iran by years, and make it
> impossible for the US to have normal relations with the future
> democratic Iran, whenever it emerges. It increases anger in the Islamic
> world. It increases resentment in Europe, which is pursuing a different
> policy vis a vis Iran. And it does nothing to solve the structural
> problems underlying the bloody conflicts in the Middle East.
>
> quite a while.
>
You know I glad there is a guy like this around with all the answers.
Definitive one at that.
jwk