if the US attacks Iraq thats gonna cause a lotta problems
vin
does anyone think its a good idea?
not only that thousands of innocent people will die,
but also the fact that its prolly gonna piss a lot
of countries off, who are already pretty pissed.
Martin Cortez
hole in your head
--
o_O
marty
"vin" <vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g%nW8.781$5i5.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
vin
>hole in your head
somewhere over the rainbow..
Holtz
vin wrote:
Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
lost and he would be gone.
--
Holtz.
Remove BUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL to reply
My bootleg list,
http://www.tapetrader.com/Holtz
JohnG
news:3D2A24A1...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL...
>
> Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
> Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
> would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
> lost and he would be gone.
>
Simplistic yet distinctly possible. We should have collapsed Saddham's
empire in 1991 when we had the chance. However, now that nukes are playing
a major role in the middle east, something has to be done or else the US
soil runs the risk of being obliterated with a nuke by the wrong militant
country.
That's the only thing I truly fear.
Regards,
John
Scott Mansell
>
>vin wrote:
>
>> its too bad its no longer a matter of if, but rather when.
>> does anyone think its a good idea?
>> not only that thousands of innocent people will die,
>> but also the fact that its prolly gonna piss a lot
>> of countries off, who are already pretty pissed.
>
>Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
>Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
>would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
>lost and he would be gone.
So you (US) are allowing yourself to interfear in the domestic
politics of other countries, so surely you must allow other countries
to do the same to you?
This arrogance on the part of the United States is what has caused all
your problems. Your blind support of Israel (justified only because it
gives you a strategic position in the middle east), a country which is
occupying Palestinian lands, is causing trouble. The Western World's,
lead by you the United States, exportation of its cultural, religious,
economic and political values to the Arab world must stop. You
complain that they hate your freedom, your way of life. They hate you
because you hate them. If you were more accepting of them, then and
only then could you demand the same of the Arabs.
Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
role as the one true global superpower
Scott.
Holtz
Scott Mansell wrote:
Hey dumbfuck Vin isn't American.
Brian (aka Zod)
i need is war with a member of OPEC :)
- BRian
Scott Mansell
It wasnt him I was attacking, it was you. Cant you retort what I said
without making anti-polemic personal attacks?
Scott
Adam E
> would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
> lost and he would be gone.
Why? If we kill him, he becomes a martyr. Then millions of middle
easterners wage war against america in his name to honor his memory. It
would only make it worse.
--
AE
team FMS
http://www.teamFMS.org
Rob Smith
sounds like an ideal solution to a problem we need to re-evaluate our
perspectives. we cannot possibly expect to evolve in future generations
when we tell our children to "use their words" and not solve problems
with fists, then lead by example by murdering to get our way. as for the
nuke issue, the united states is the only country monsterous and
irresponsible enough in the history of mankind to use atomic weapons
against others, thus making us the least qualified to judge who is
responsible enough to have an arsonal. i agree that iraq having nukes is
frightening, so is the u.s. having nukes. at any rate, a country that
held fellow humans in slavery, and destroyed entire civilizations of
native americans in the name of manifest destiny is in no position to
dictate ethics to other cultures.
Holtz
Scott Mansell wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:57:22 -0500, Holtz
> <holt...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scott Mansell wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >vin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> its too bad its no longer a matter of if, but rather when.
> >> >> does anyone think its a good idea?
> >> >> not only that thousands of innocent people will die,
> >> >> but also the fact that its prolly gonna piss a lot
> >> >> of countries off, who are already pretty pissed.
> >> >
> >> >Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
> >> >Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
> >> >would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
> >> >lost and he would be gone.
> >>
> >> So you (US) are allowing yourself to interfear in the domestic
> >> politics of other countries, so surely you must allow other countries
> >> to do the same to you?
Well if we are willing to give nuclear and biological weapons to terrorist
groups then its the same situation. I guess we should wait for Hussein to
continue to build his arsenal as he blatant;y snubs the UN inspectors, then when
he decides to give it to terrorists who gladly say they pray for the destuction
of the US and they kill more civilians then maybe you will say we can do
something about it.
>
> >>
> >> This arrogance on the part of the United States is what has caused all
> >> your problems. Your blind support of Israel (justified only because it
> >> gives you a strategic position in the middle east), a country which is
> >> occupying Palestinian lands, is causing trouble.
I don't blindly support Israel, I think they should get out of Palestine.
> The Western World's,
> >> lead by you the United States, exportation of its cultural, religious,
> >> economic and political values to the Arab world must stop. You
> >> complain that they hate your freedom, your way of life.
I don't complain that they hate our freedom or way of life.
> They hate you
> >> because you hate them. If you were more accepting of them, then and
> >> only then could you demand the same of the Arabs.
>
I don't hate them, excpet for the ones who blow themselves up killing innocent
civilians.
> >>
> >> Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
> >> role as the one true global superpower
>
Hey I didn't vote for Bush as well as the majority of the country didn't either
so stop thinking every American loves what the guy is doing or the policies the
gov't has.
> >>
> >> Scott.
> >
> >Hey dumbfuck Vin isn't American.
> >
> >
>
> It wasnt him I was attacking, it was you. Cant you retort what I said
> without making anti-polemic personal attacks?
> Scott
--
Chaim
years of sanctions, and now we are going to go and bomb them. All so W can get
a hard-on.
It's pathetic.
This has to be the most destructive presidency in the past 50 years, at least.
Everything we feared about this man is coming true, and it's only beed two
fucking years. Look at all he's done.
You are right, Vin, it will cause alot of problems. Basically, anyone in arab
nations who wasn't SURE that they hated america is going to be DAMN sure after
we are through with Iraq. Bush seems hellbent on causing world war III... as
if bombing the shit out of afghanistan (I supported ending the taliban, but not
fucking Bombings....)... I mean, when is this oging to stop.
If makes me sick when I hear him on television saying things like "Well, we're
at war now, so things are hard..." WE? WE? No, Georgie, YOU are at WAR, not
WE. I wonder how many people support his "War" with how far it's gone now, as
opposed to when the moves in afghanistan first began.
"We". Suck my fucking cock, Mr. Bush.
You know, it's the attitude that we are the moral authority in the world that
also is the cause foir us STILL having the gaddamn death penalty, and
continuously disliked my, I would say, MOST people in the world.
When was it that we got too big for our britches, exactly. I have been
wondering this lately. Was it when we beat the british? No, I don't think so.
We would not have had that at all if it weren;t for alot of help from other
poeple.
I think it was WWII... that ego trip the country must jhave been on after
saving the world from the reich was probably enormous.
I mean, we were really saviours of the world, weren't we?
(Now, I, of course, fully supprt ending the nazi regime, no doubt.)
Well, I think that must have been it. Since them we just had to save the world
from everything didn't we? From the commies! Oh! The commies!!! Well, our
country would just be destroyed if the commies succeeded ANYWHEREm, wouldn't
it... I mean, think of how arrogant that was, thinking that "communism anywhere
in the world" was a direct threat to our freedom here.
Fuck you.
So we send thousands of our boys to die in vietnam, its a disaster, and still
we have not learned.
Now, of course, we just vbomb from the sky, and kill other peoples boys, god
forbid we send our own.
I mean, the whole country and media freaks when any one US military man dies
nowadays. It's fucking pathetic. You are a SOLDIER. You are SUPPOSED TO
FIGHT AND DIE IN WARS! Isn't that what you fucking signed up for? But now
everyone get';s surprised when it happens.
You know, I was reading today about how the number of innocent lives list
during war has increased over the years. I mean, percentae-wise.
Wars used to be fought in open speces, battles between two armies, fighting
eachother, using weapons with little or no range. As gtime has gone on, we
have long range weapons, bombs, planes, nukes, etc. None of these are nearly
as accurate as, say, a sword. So as a result we get TONS of collateral
damage... In my textbook from class, it says that some wars fought (it did not
specift where, fucking textbook) have a 4 to 1 ratio of innocents killed
compared to soldiers (soldiers being the ONE)...
War is one of those things I look at that makes me think man really does need
to start all over. I mean like bull-dozing it all and going back to caves and
shit. I mean, how bad was war really when it was fought with swords, compared
to what it has become today. Our country alone has the nuclear power to kill
everyone in the world 4 times. And we, as a nation, have this ego that
dictates that we are the deifining moral force in the world. And, we have a
President who is hellbent on dry-humping the third world until he finally gets
off. How long is this going to take and how many will die?
How are we allowed to be this way, I am SHOCKED that no other industrial nation
hasn't challenged us. I mean, really, you don't see, say, China going around
bombing people! Or the canadians? God bless you guys! But really, all the
smaller countries, at this point, should band together against the US,
sancition the fuck out of us and our covernment, bomb a few cities, and see how
we like it.
That's about how I feel right now.
-Chaim
"I will decide how I'll be tied,
But freedom be the death of me,
We build the walls around our brain,
Then leave these prisons in our chains,
And hold on,
I thought I had control, I tried,
But now I would be satisfied,
To hold on."
chris smither
Scott Mansell
<holt...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL> wrote:
>
>
>Scott Mansell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:57:22 -0500, Holtz
>> <holt...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Scott Mansell wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >vin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> its too bad its no longer a matter of if, but rather when.
>> >> >> does anyone think its a good idea?
>> >> >> not only that thousands of innocent people will die,
>> >> >> but also the fact that its prolly gonna piss a lot
>> >> >> of countries off, who are already pretty pissed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
>> >> >Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
>> >> >would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
>> >> >lost and he would be gone.
>> >>
>> >> So you (US) are allowing yourself to interfear in the domestic
>> >> politics of other countries, so surely you must allow other countries
>> >> to do the same to you?
>
>Well if we are willing to give nuclear and biological weapons to terrorist
>groups then its the same situation. I guess we should wait for Hussein to
>continue to build his arsenal as he blatant;y snubs the UN inspectors, then when
>he decides to give it to terrorists who gladly say they pray for the destuction
>of the US and they kill more civilians then maybe you will say we can do
>something about it.
Well I dont think you should talk about "snubbing the UN" when it was
your administration who refuses to ratify a number of UN initatives,
such as the international court. History has shown the US's disregard
for international law - Iran/Contra and the whole Nicaragua debarkle
(both under Somoza and then post the Sandinistan revolution in 1979)
is a case in point.
As for Iraq - there is no proof that there is a link between Hussein
and the 9/11 terrorists.
>>
>> >>
>> >> This arrogance on the part of the United States is what has caused all
>> >> your problems. Your blind support of Israel (justified only because it
>> >> gives you a strategic position in the middle east), a country which is
>> >> occupying Palestinian lands, is causing trouble.
>
>I don't blindly support Israel, I think they should get out of Palestine.
Good.
>> The Western World's,
>> >> lead by you the United States, exportation of its cultural, religious,
>> >> economic and political values to the Arab world must stop. You
>> >> complain that they hate your freedom, your way of life.
>
>I don't complain that they hate our freedom or way of life.
Your government does.
>> They hate you
>> >> because you hate them. If you were more accepting of them, then and
>> >> only then could you demand the same of the Arabs.
>>
>
>I don't hate them, excpet for the ones who blow themselves up killing innocent
>civilians.
But does that not say something for their plight?
>
>> >>
>> >> Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
>> >> role as the one true global superpower
>>
>
>Hey I didn't vote for Bush as well as the majority of the country didn't either
>so stop thinking every American loves what the guy is doing or the policies the
>gov't has.
I dont criticse you, I criticise your representatives.
Eddie Hill
> does anyone think its a good idea?
getting rid of sadaam's a good idea. yes. we're not doing the political
part of building up support for it though. it should be a NATO thing, not a
US thing. so far, no luck
eddie
Vin
>empire in 1991 when we had the chance. However, now that nukes are playing
>a major role in the middle east, something has to be done or else the US
>soil runs the risk of being obliterated with a nuke by the wrong militant
>country.
>
>That's the only thing I truly fear.
>
>Regards,
why you guys take out the saudi royal family?
Eddie Hill
"JohnG" <john...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:w%pW8.75821$QD2.20...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> "Holtz" <holt...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL> wrote in message
> news:3D2A24A1...@tc.umn.eduBUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL...
> >
> > Anything the US does pisses of alot of Arabs, they are all convinced the
> > Americans hate them and love Israel. The best thing that could happen
> > would be an assassination of Hussein, then innocent lives wouldn't be
> > lost and he would be gone.
> >
>
> Simplistic yet distinctly possible. We should have collapsed Saddham's
> empire in 1991 when we had the chance.
who would have replaced him? sadaam's pretty secular. he's not little to
no love for the bin laudin's of the world. unless he's forced to join up w/
them from the enemy of an enemy point of view. we topple him, we have to be
careful not to get a radical islamic government in his place. and there is
a taliban-esque force in northern iraq.
eddie
Eddie Hill
"Scott Mansell" <man...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3d2a2d4b...@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
HA! you're suggesting our role as a superpower is to stay out of the way
while repressive governments have their way on a region? nope. it's time
we stepped up to our role of a superpower and stop tolerating regimes like
iraq and the taliban and iran.
eddie
> Scott.
Eddie Hill
"Chaim" <cupin...@aol.coma> wrote in message
news:20020709024848...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> It's hideus... I mean, first we impoverish and destroy the3 country with
ten
> years of sanctions, and now we are going to go and bomb them. All so W
can get
> a hard-on.
>
> It's pathetic.
>
> This has to be the most destructive presidency in the past 50 years, at
least.
>
nah, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan were all worse.
> Everything we feared about this man is coming true, and it's only beed two
> fucking years. Look at all he's done.
>
that's true
> You are right, Vin, it will cause alot of problems. Basically, anyone in
arab
> nations who wasn't SURE that they hated america is going to be DAMN sure
after
> we are through with Iraq. Bush seems hellbent on causing world war III...
as
> if bombing the shit out of afghanistan (I supported ending the taliban,
but not
> fucking Bombings....)... I mean, when is this oging to stop.
>
what else is there? no bombs, no sanctions, what?
> If makes me sick when I hear him on television saying things like "Well,
we're
> at war now, so things are hard..." WE? WE? No, Georgie, YOU are at WAR,
not
> WE. I wonder how many people support his "War" with how far it's gone
now, as
> opposed to when the moves in afghanistan first began.
>
it's not even a war
> "We". Suck my fucking cock, Mr. Bush.
>
he might do it for some blow
> You know, it's the attitude that we are the moral authority in the world
that
> also is the cause foir us STILL having the gaddamn death penalty, and
> continuously disliked my, I would say, MOST people in the world.
>
> When was it that we got too big for our britches, exactly. I have been
> wondering this lately. Was it when we beat the british? No, I don't
think so.
> We would not have had that at all if it weren;t for alot of help from
other
> poeple.
>
> I think it was WWII... that ego trip the country must jhave been on after
> saving the world from the reich was probably enormous.
>
that's it
> I mean, we were really saviours of the world, weren't we?
>
for now, yup. in order it was/is: greeks, romans, spanish, brits, french,
brits again, US.
> (Now, I, of course, fully supprt ending the nazi regime, no doubt.)
>
direct parallel w/ iraq now.
> Well, I think that must have been it. Since them we just had to save the
world
> from everything didn't we? From the commies! Oh! The commies!!! Well,
our
> country would just be destroyed if the commies succeeded ANYWHEREm,
wouldn't
> it... I mean, think of how arrogant that was, thinking that "communism
anywhere
> in the world" was a direct threat to our freedom here.
>
> Fuck you.
>
> So we send thousands of our boys to die in vietnam, its a disaster, and
still
> we have not learned.
>
> Now, of course, we just vbomb from the sky, and kill other peoples boys,
god
> forbid we send our own.
>
> I mean, the whole country and media freaks when any one US military man
dies
> nowadays. It's fucking pathetic. You are a SOLDIER. You are SUPPOSED TO
> FIGHT AND DIE IN WARS! Isn't that what you fucking signed up for? But
now
> everyone get';s surprised when it happens.
>
i'm w/ you on that one
> You know, I was reading today about how the number of innocent lives list
> during war has increased over the years. I mean, percentae-wise.
>
> Wars used to be fought in open speces, battles between two armies,
fighting
> eachother, using weapons with little or no range. As gtime has gone on,
we
> have long range weapons, bombs, planes, nukes, etc. None of these are
nearly
> as accurate as, say, a sword. So as a result we get TONS of collateral
> damage... In my textbook from class, it says that some wars fought (it did
not
> specift where, fucking textbook) have a 4 to 1 ratio of innocents killed
> compared to soldiers (soldiers being the ONE)...
>
nah, you're wrong. back in the middle ages armies took out villages.
pillage and plunder and all that. there've always been civilian casulties.
it's just now we pay a lot of lip service to trying to avoid them.
> War is one of those things I look at that makes me think man really does
need
> to start all over. I mean like bull-dozing it all and going back to caves
and
> shit. I mean, how bad was war really when it was fought with swords,
compared
> to what it has become today. Our country alone has the nuclear power to
kill
> everyone in the world 4 times. And we, as a nation, have this ego that
> dictates that we are the deifining moral force in the world. And, we have
a
> President who is hellbent on dry-humping the third world until he finally
gets
> off. How long is this going to take and how many will die?
>
> How are we allowed to be this way, I am SHOCKED that no other industrial
nation
> hasn't challenged us. I mean, really, you don't see, say, China going
around
> bombing people!
not lately... but they did invade tibet and manchuria. lord knows they'd
take out tiawan if ever given a chance.
> Or the canadians? God bless you guys! But really, all the
> smaller countries, at this point, should band together against the US,
> sancition the fuck out of us and our covernment, bomb a few cities, and
see how
> we like it.
>
and that'd do what????
> That's about how I feel right now.
>
i still think we have a obligation to take out all dictators everywhere.
eddie
SiR.B
adding:
>"JohnG" <john...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> empire in 1991 when we had the chance.
>
>who would have replaced him? sadaam's pretty secular.
Before we kill the guy, how about we learn to spell his name right? :)
Can we say "Saddam" kiddies? Ô
Justin.
Ji-nay
"Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GyzGt...@news.boeing.com...
Not to say I particularly disagree with you Eddie, but I think that's
kind of the way the "evil doers" are viewing the West. Both sides feel
their way is the right and only way, and feel justified in the pursuit.
Like with any conflict, I guess.
I should probably leave this thread alone until I'm more alert, but what
the hell.
-Jennifer
Ji-nay
"Chaim" <cupin...@aol.coma> wrote in message
news:20020709024848...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> You know, it's the attitude that we are the moral authority in the
world that
> also is the cause foir us STILL having the gaddamn death penalty, and
> continuously disliked my, I would say, MOST people in the world.
>
> When was it that we got too big for our britches, exactly. I have
been
> wondering this lately. Was it when we beat the british? No, I don't
think so.
> We would not have had that at all if it weren;t for alot of help from
other
> poeple.
>
> I think it was WWII... that ego trip the country must jhave been on
after
> saving the world from the reich was probably enormous.
>
> I mean, we were really saviours of the world, weren't we?
That's the way the Americans certaintly like to view it, sure. I do,
however, think that it's a great insult to the other allied troops who
were in there before the U.S. Remember, Britain and Canada (I was born
and raised in Canada, to a Canadian mother and a British father...and
I'm now married to an American!) declared war in September of 1939, so
they were in there fighting a couple of years before the Americans got
involved. My grandfather (British Army) was called up in October of 1939
and was one of the soldiers captured (by the regular German army) at St.
Valery in June of 1940 who were aiding in the evacuation of the many
thousands of allied troops at Dunkirk. ("The Miracle of Dunkirk" it's
often called). So on behalf of the men like my grandfather who lost 5
years of his youth in a hellhole of a POW camp, I get really offended at
the whole "we sure saved your asses in dubya dubya 2". It cheapens my
Papa's sacrifice. We certainly needed your help, but I don't believe
that the U.S. could have done it alone, either.
Chaim, I'm not attacking you at all (and I agreed with your post), I'm
just upset with the mentality.
-Jennifer
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
news:3d2aeeb7...@news.optusnet.com.au...
bah!
eddie
> Justin.
Eddie Hill
"Vin" <bja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LyBW8.1171$5i5.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
we should do that too
Eddie Hill
"Ji-nay" <igotfoots...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BiDW8.42486$Xs6.1...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> way
> > while repressive governments have their way on a region? nope. it's
> time
> > we stepped up to our role of a superpower and stop tolerating regimes
> like
> > iraq and the taliban and iran.
> >
> > eddie
>
> Not to say I particularly disagree with you Eddie, but I think that's
> kind of the way the "evil doers" are viewing the West. Both sides feel
> their way is the right and only way, and feel justified in the pursuit.
> Like with any conflict, I guess.
>
but their ultimate world would be one in which a repressive religion rules
us all. ours (in theory, at least) is one in which democracy rules.
my problem w/ W is the same as my problem w/ saddam. (got it right that
time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
eddie
Ji-nay
I agree on both counts. (I was playing devil's advocate with the logic).
And you've got something there re: both liking dictatorships. In my 24
years, I've never seen such a fear of dissent in the U.S. as I do right
now. I think Bush started it with his "with us or against us"
propaganda. I'd like to see his reaction were another country to try
that!
-Jennifer
JettKarma
>its too bad its no longer a matter of if, but rather when.
>does anyone think its a good idea?
>not only that thousands of innocent people will die,
>but also the fact that its prolly gonna piss a lot
>of countries off, who are already pretty pissed.
****************************************************************
It's a great idea! At least for Mr. Bush. But he should wait until
voters grow restless or his approval ratings start to dip--or he gets
caught up in a bigger than usual scandal. About 9 months before
re-election could be ideal. He wouldn't be the first president to
utilize a similar strategy or opportunity. Maybe this time we should
act like we really are trying to kill Saddam, just to keep the drama
high--and, maybe, if election projections were looking particularly
dreary, Bush could actually finish him off just in time to have voters
scoot into the booth and patriotically pull the lever.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0708-05.htm
I don't know what to make of this guy, Ritter. Either he's bought and
paid for by Saddam...or he developed a conscience. I can't say which
it is. But, until we have some damn good damning evidence Saddam
clearly means to take us on/down...I think it's a stupid idea to go
over to Iraq and kick their asses. We don't need any more terrorists
out after us...thanks...we've got enough already.
--Jett
vin
>>
>
>we should do that too
fat chance
Eddie Hill
> >> why you guys take out the saudi royal family?
> >>
> >
> >we should do that too
>
> fat chance
>
once again i emphasize there's a difference between what we should do and
what we do
eddie f hill
SiR.B
>time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
Then concentrate on the problems in your own backyard before you blow
up someone elses. You have one wicked government. And I don't mean
that in the gnarly/rad/tubular/bodacious sense :)
Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism, I'd
suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
Justin.
vin
>>
>> fat chance
>>
>
>once again i emphasize there's a difference between what we should do and
>what we do
baloney
JohnG
>
> baloney
>
Does it have a first name and a second name and do you like to eat it every
day?
John
Chaim
>i still think we have a obligation to take out all dictators everywhere.
This isn't a fucking John Wayne movie... Bush thinks we are in a western, and
our job is to vanquish "evil doers"... There are a hell of alot of leaders out
there who can safely be labeled "dictators". Is it okay for us to take ALL of
them out.
Also, I would be shocked if Bush had Saddam quietly sniped from a secure
position. Please, that;s not the Bush way. Besides, we might lose one of our
PRECIOUS SOLDIERS!!!!
WHere does our obligation to take out all dictators root from? That's what I
want to know.
You know, if we want to tsake out dictators, why not start by educating
populations on systems of government and philosophy, revolution... change needs
to come from within.
Palastine, for example, will nt change until years of programming inflicted on
the people is undone. Education is ultimately all that will save that region.
If arafat goes, that could give rise to someone worse...
If we have an obligation to take out dictators, what else are we obliged to do?
Does it say in the constitution that we are obliged to take out dictators?
Sounds like Bush wants some more domestic terrorism in this country, because
that is just what he is going to get if he goes on like this... strike first,
kill kill kill
Chaim
>
>That's the way the Americans certaintly like to view it, sure. I do,
>however, think that it's a great insult to the other allied troops
<snip>
What you have said is completely true, and only adds to the ridiculousness of
the American mentality. Obviously, things are more important when the US does
tham than they are when done by other countries...
>Chaim, I'm not attacking you at all (and I agreed with your post), I'm
>just upset with the mentality.
Ditto.
Scott Mansell
>> Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
>> role as the one true global superpower
>>
>
>HA! you're suggesting our role as a superpower is to stay out of the way
>while repressive governments have their way on a region? nope. it's time
>we stepped up to our role of a superpower and stop tolerating regimes like
>iraq and the taliban and iran.
>
>eddie
>
No, obviously there are grounds for intervention in some cases. (Yes I
am aware of the debate about how far national soverignty should go)
The removal of the Taliban might be considered one - but did you
really need to bomb the shit out of the Afghans?
But my point is more subtle. Lets look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is
their democratically elected leader. He is a socialist. SO what? The
people voted him in - thats democracy. He has some friends who you
don't like - Castro, Saddam etc. He also has oil and gives it at a
reduced price to Cuba. So you dont like him. Its pretty clear that
your government covertly supported a coup against Chavez back in April
- you supported a coup against a democratically elected leader,
breaking OAS treaties in the process.
That is but one example of the US's arrogance "we can do whatever we
want". That is my problem. You were attacked on 9/11, and I do feel
for you, and yes you had the right to capture those responsible - but
to go on a blind assualt, labelling everyone you don't like as a
terrorist, I think is taking it a bit too far.
I don't for a second think that the US gives a shit about human
rights. Maybe Carter did, maybe Clinton did (but to a lesser extent)
But your republican presidents (post Nixon anyway) have not. You have
supported regimes in the past, such as Somoza in Nicaragua, who have
breached human rights to such an extent that any attempt by the US now
to stand up and say 'we believe in human rights' is laughable.
Scott.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >my problem w/ W is the same as my problem w/ saddam. (got it right that
> >time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
>
> Then concentrate on the problems in your own backyard before you blow
> up someone elses. You have one wicked government. And I don't mean
> that in the gnarly/rad/tubular/bodacious sense :)
>
isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon and
bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
ignoring the situation.
> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>I'd
> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
>
eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't bug
me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of retaliation
from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
eddie f hill
> Justin.
Eddie Hill
oh? you're going to say that we always do what's right? really? i know
you're argumentative... but this takes the cake!
eddie f hill
Scott Mansell
>isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
>through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon and
>bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
>ignoring the situation.
Why not take a Marshall Plan/Truman doctrine approach to your foreign
policy?
>> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
>
>? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>
>>I'd
>> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
>> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
>>
>
>eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't bug
>me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of retaliation
>from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
>
but if thats the international climate, then surely your foreign
policy must take it into account?
Eddie Hill
"Chaim" <cupin...@aol.coma> wrote in message
> Jennifer said:
>
> >
> >That's the way the Americans certaintly like to view it, sure. I do,
> >however, think that it's a great insult to the other allied troops
>
> <snip>
>
> What you have said is completely true, and only adds to the ridiculousness
of
> the American mentality. Obviously, things are more important when the US
does
> tham than they are when done by other countries...
>
the US certainly turned the tide in that war. you can't honestly believe
russia and the UK would have beaten germany on their own???
eddie
Eddie Hill
"Chaim" <cupin...@aol.coma> wrote in message
> Eddie said:
>
> >i still think we have a obligation to take out all dictators everywhere.
>
> This isn't a fucking John Wayne movie... Bush thinks we are in a western,
and
> our job is to vanquish "evil doers"... There are a hell of alot of leaders
out
> there who can safely be labeled "dictators". Is it okay for us to take
ALL of
> them out.
>
ok, yes. feasible, no. the really bad ones should be first on our list.
> Also, I would be shocked if Bush had Saddam quietly sniped from a secure
> position. Please, that;s not the Bush way. Besides, we might lose one of
our
> PRECIOUS SOLDIERS!!!!
>
well, we'd want to ensure another dictator didn't just take his place... i
think a NATO operation would be the best way to do all of this, but no one
else supports this, because we've been stupid about the diplomacy behind it.
> WHere does our obligation to take out all dictators root from? That's
what I
> want to know.
>
human decency? saddam has killed millions of his people. gassed, mostly.
that's something the international community has an obligation to stop.
> You know, if we want to tsake out dictators, why not start by educating
> populations on systems of government and philosophy, revolution... change
needs
> to come from within.
>
how? tv broadcasts? how many people in these countries have TVs? press?
most places don't have free press. that's one of the things that dictators
like to get rid of right off the bat. W's got our press in a pretty tight
leash right now. and he's far from an outright dictator.
> Palastine, for example, will nt change until years of programming
inflicted on
> the people is undone. Education is ultimately all that will save that
region.
> If arafat goes, that could give rise to someone worse...
>
exactly. that's why you move in w/ a peacekeeping force to watch over the
transition. it'll take time. probably decades. but it can be done. for
the most part europe didn't return to monarchies after france left. and the
places that did became democracies on their own w/ a little more time. the
planted the seeds of democracy. that's what we should be doing.
> If we have an obligation to take out dictators, what else are we obliged
to do?
>
ensure that another dictator or oligarchy doesn't return.
>
> Does it say in the constitution that we are obliged to take out dictators?
>
that's got absolutely nothing to do w/ anything...
> Sounds like Bush wants some more domestic terrorism in this country,
because
> that is just what he is going to get if he goes on like this... strike
first,
> kill kill kill
>
because he's not handling the situation properly. hell, the situation's not
been handled properly since...well... ever.
eddie w hill
Eddie Hill
>
> >> Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
> >> role as the one true global superpower
> >>
> >
> >HA! you're suggesting our role as a superpower is to stay out of the way
> >while repressive governments have their way on a region? nope. it's
time
> >we stepped up to our role of a superpower and stop tolerating regimes
like
> >iraq and the taliban and iran.
> >
> >eddie
> >
>
> No, obviously there are grounds for intervention in some cases. (Yes I
> am aware of the debate about how far national soverignty should go)
> The removal of the Taliban might be considered one - but did you
> really need to bomb the shit out of the Afghans?
>
i guess we could have asked the taliban nicely if they'd leave...
> But my point is more subtle. Lets look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is
> their democratically elected leader. He is a socialist. SO what? The
> people voted him in - thats democracy. He has some friends who you
> don't like - Castro, Saddam etc. He also has oil and gives it at a
> reduced price to Cuba. So you dont like him. Its pretty clear that
> your government covertly supported a coup against Chavez back in April
> - you supported a coup against a democratically elected leader,
> breaking OAS treaties in the process.
>
right. which is unacceptable. i don't support that action at all.
> That is but one example of the US's arrogance "we can do whatever we
> want". That is my problem. You were attacked on 9/11, and I do feel
> for you, and yes you had the right to capture those responsible - but
> to go on a blind assualt, labelling everyone you don't like as a
> terrorist, I think is taking it a bit too far.
>
and, of course, i agree.
a lot of dictators are in power because we put them there. this is also
wrong. i'm not saying US foreign policy is always right. i often disagree.
and the few times i agree w/ it, the reasons i support the action are
different then the real reason we're doing it. iraq being a great example.
i think saddam should be gone because he's repressive and kills his
citizens. W wants rid of him because he peeved off daddy.
> I don't for a second think that the US gives a shit about human
> rights. Maybe Carter did, maybe Clinton did (but to a lesser extent)
> But your republican presidents (post Nixon anyway) have not. You have
> supported regimes in the past, such as Somoza in Nicaragua, who have
> breached human rights to such an extent that any attempt by the US now
> to stand up and say 'we believe in human rights' is laughable.
>
well, i believe in human rights. and i expect my government to act
accordingly. and, of course, they don't always. that doesn't mean they
shouldn't. they should.
eddie
> Scott.
Eddie Hill
>
> >isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
> >through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon
and
> >bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
> >ignoring the situation.
>
> Why not take a Marshall Plan/Truman doctrine approach to your foreign
> policy?
>
a great plan that did a lot for europe. western europe's been at peace
since WWII!!! has w. europe EVER had that long of a period w/o a major war?
eastern europe's got troubles because of the collapse of the soviet union
and the power vacuum there. but that'll be worked out shortly, and life
will go on. NATO should move into eastern europe and ensure democracy
there. and to some extent they're doing that.
> >> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
> >
> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
> >
> >>I'd
> >> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
> >> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
> >>
> >
> >eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't
bug
> >me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of
retaliation
> >from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
> >
>
> but if thats the international climate, then surely your foreign
> policy must take it into account?
i disagree. we shouldn't let dictators kill people just because if we
overthrow them someone will blow up a bomb here in the states. that's weak.
if you value human rights, you'll protect them even when it's not convenient
for you. W's done a horrible job drumming up support for ousting saddam.
mostly because he doesn't care. i don't agree w/ that strategy. i'd prefer
to see russia take the lead role in this one. this is their backyard.
again, not to say this is how the US does business... but it should!
eddie
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>news:3d2b4ba5...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
>> adding:
>> >my problem w/ W is the same as my problem w/ saddam. (got it right that
>> >time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
>>
>> Then concentrate on the problems in your own backyard before you blow
>> up someone elses. You have one wicked government. And I don't mean
>> that in the gnarly/rad/tubular/bodacious sense :)
>
>isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
>through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon and
>bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
>ignoring the situation.
And that would be the end of the world right? We can't have anyone
complain that you are ignoring something that is none of your
business, the american ideals of being the saviours of the universe
and the single greatest entity in the history of mankind wouldn't cop
that... You guys have fucked up the world and your own land just as
much as anyone else, yet you continue to think the way you live is the
right way. It's not. There is no one right way, but there are lots of
wrong ways, and yours is one of them.
>> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
>
>? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
It was an attack, wait till your people are too scared to drink water,
too scared to go into a subway, live in constant fear....
>>I'd
>> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
>> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
>>
>eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't bug
>me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of retaliation
>from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
Your foreign policy is concerned with keeping everyone else down while
raping them to keep america stable. You guys should totally rethink
your stance, because, as the "superpower" you all claim to be, you
should be leading change not leading your own brand of terrorism.
Justin.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> >news:3d2b4ba5...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
> >> adding:
> >> >my problem w/ W is the same as my problem w/ saddam. (got it right
that
> >> >time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
> >>
> >> Then concentrate on the problems in your own backyard before you blow
> >> up someone elses. You have one wicked government. And I don't mean
> >> that in the gnarly/rad/tubular/bodacious sense :)
> >
> >isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
> >through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon
and
> >bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
> >ignoring the situation.
>
> And that would be the end of the world right? We can't have anyone
> complain that you are ignoring something that is none of your
it's no better or worse then listening to you all complain about what we're
doing, i guess.
> business,
everything's our business.
> the american ideals of being the saviours of the universe
> and the single greatest entity in the history of mankind wouldn't cop
> that...
not america. democracy. so, uh, yea.
> You guys have fucked up the world and your own land just as
> much as anyone else, yet you continue to think the way you live is the
> right way. It's not. There is no one right way, but there are lots of
> wrong ways, and yours is one of them.
>
all i'm saying is that ours are better then dictators and oligarchies and
military run countries. that's it. if you don't agree... well...
>
> >> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
> >
> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>
> It was an attack, wait till your people are too scared to drink water,
> too scared to go into a subway, live in constant fear....
>
won't happen
> >>
> >eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't
bug
> >me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of
retaliation
> >from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
>
> Your foreign policy is concerned with keeping everyone else down while
> raping them to keep america stable. You guys should totally rethink
> your stance, because, as the "superpower" you all claim to be, you
> should be leading change not leading your own brand of terrorism.
>
the superpower thing isn't a claim, it's a fact. no one comes close to
touching us in the way of military or economic power. not even close.
as for saying we should be leading, i agree. we should be leading. we need
the help of the other free countries. the current admin. isn't pushing
that... they should.
i'm ignorning the terrorism comment because it's nonsense, and i'm tired of
that word being misused.
eddie
> Justin.
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>> complain that you are ignoring something that is none of your
>
>it's no better or worse then listening to you all complain about what we're
>doing, i guess.
I think we have a right to complain, hell, even a lot of your own
citizens are complaining about it.
>> business,
>
>everything's our business.
Hypocrisy. You wouldn't want other countries sticking their noses in
to your business would you?
>> the american ideals of being the saviours of the universe
>> and the single greatest entity in the history of mankind wouldn't cop
>> that...
>
>not america. democracy. so, uh, yea.
So you're saying democracy is the saviour? It wasn't last year, or the
year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, or
the....
>> You guys have fucked up the world and your own land just as
>> much as anyone else, yet you continue to think the way you live is the
>> right way. It's not. There is no one right way, but there are lots of
>> wrong ways, and yours is one of them.
>
>all i'm saying is that ours are better then dictators and oligarchies and
>military run countries. that's it. if you don't agree... well...
You prop up many of the worst dictators and oppressive regimes while
attacking and killing civilians in ones that are among the higher in
standard of living. Imagine where Cuba would be now if it wasn't for
all the CIA led bullshit and the economic sanctions.
>> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>>
>> It was an attack, wait till your people are too scared to drink water,
>> too scared to go into a subway, live in constant fear....
>
>won't happen
Denial isn't going to save you, I would put money down that if you
attack Iraq, you will suffer.
>> Your foreign policy is concerned with keeping everyone else down while
>> raping them to keep america stable. You guys should totally rethink
>> your stance, because, as the "superpower" you all claim to be, you
>> should be leading change not leading your own brand of terrorism.
>
>the superpower thing isn't a claim, it's a fact. no one comes close to
>touching us in the way of military or economic power. not even close.
You're like the big tough bully in primary school, throwing your
weight around and saying how good you are. There isn't anything super
about that. Super means superior, and I don't think you guys are.
(Which is why I put it in quotes).
>as for saying we should be leading, i agree. we should be leading. we need
>the help of the other free countries. the current admin. isn't pushing
>that... they should.
No, you need to fix your country so you're no longer raping it and the
rest of the world, then help other countries to do the same. You have
the opposite goal however.
>i'm ignorning the terrorism comment because it's nonsense, and i'm tired of
>that word being misused.
Here is a list of Terrorist targets/incidents the US has either
supported or led:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
A look at US foreign policy (which is intended to keep the
non--western world in shambles):
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
A review of the book "ROGUE STATE: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower, " by William Blum:
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/01-09%20FALL/rouguestate.html
A quote: ""From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States
attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush
more than 30 populist- nationalist movements struggling against
intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for
several million people, and condemned millions more to a life of agony
and despair".
Justin.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> >> And that would be the end of the world right? We can't have anyone
> >> complain that you are ignoring something that is none of your
> >
> >it's no better or worse then listening to you all complain about what
we're
> >doing, i guess.
>
> I think we have a right to complain, hell, even a lot of your own
> citizens are complaining about it.
>
not saying you can't complain. just saying it's "damn if we do, damn if we
don't."
>
> >> business,
> >
> >everything's our business.
>
> Hypocrisy. You wouldn't want other countries sticking their noses in
> to your business would you?
>
you all want to send a force to investigate the 2000 elections i'm all for
it. get the UN involved. i'm ALL for it.
>
> >> the american ideals of being the saviours of the universe
> >> and the single greatest entity in the history of mankind wouldn't cop
> >> that...
> >
> >not america. democracy. so, uh, yea.
>
> So you're saying democracy is the saviour? It wasn't last year, or the
> year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, or
> the....
democracy is the savior, actually. democracies don't attack each other.
free people don't have a beef w/ free people in another country just because
they're in another country. if there's going to be any of the change that
can save human kind everyone must be free first. or at least almost
everyone. we're no where near that.
>
>
> >> You guys have fucked up the world and your own land just as
> >> much as anyone else, yet you continue to think the way you live is the
> >> right way. It's not. There is no one right way, but there are lots of
> >> wrong ways, and yours is one of them.
> >
> >all i'm saying is that ours are better then dictators and oligarchies and
> >military run countries. that's it. if you don't agree... well...
>
> You prop up many of the worst dictators and oppressive regimes while
> attacking and killing civilians in ones that are among the higher in
> standard of living. Imagine where Cuba would be now if it wasn't for
> all the CIA led bullshit and the economic sanctions.
>
imagine where cuba would be now if it wasn't for russia's financial aid.
this gets us nowhere.
>
> >> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
> >>
> >> It was an attack, wait till your people are too scared to drink water,
> >> too scared to go into a subway, live in constant fear....
> >
> >won't happen
>
> Denial isn't going to save you, I would put money down that if you
> attack Iraq, you will suffer.
>
and i'll put money that if we don't we'll still suffer. plus iraqis suffer.
lesser of two evils. just becaus their are consequences doesn't mean it's
not the right thing to do.
do you know the stuff saddam's done to his people? really? and you think
the US should turn a blind eye? what about oz? or russia? should anyone
care? or just screw 'em, because they're not important to us.
>
> >> Your foreign policy is concerned with keeping everyone else down while
> >> raping them to keep america stable. You guys should totally rethink
> >> your stance, because, as the "superpower" you all claim to be, you
> >> should be leading change not leading your own brand of terrorism.
> >
> >the superpower thing isn't a claim, it's a fact. no one comes close to
> >touching us in the way of military or economic power. not even close.
>
> You're like the big tough bully in primary school, throwing your
> weight around and saying how good you are. There isn't anything super
> about that. Super means superior, and I don't think you guys are.
> (Which is why I put it in quotes).
>
super:
Of a higher nature or kind.
Of great value or excellence; extraordinary.
there's more, but that's enough. means more.
> > >as for saying we should be leading, i agree. we should be leading. we
need
> >the help of the other free countries. the current admin. isn't pushing
> >that... they should.
>
> No, you need to fix your country so you're no longer raping it and the
> rest of the world, then help other countries to do the same. You have
> the opposite goal however.
>
i'm assuming you're talking about not living sustainably. i got news for
you, no one's doing that now. and no one will do that until we all take
care of the more pressing problems. this will bite us all in the butt in 50
or 100 years or whatever. the problem w/ dictators and whoever killing
people now is biting us in the but now. one, then the other.
the world can't make the change we need to until everyone is free. how
could it? if the US made laws or whatever to stop corporations from
destorying the place for a buck they'd just move to a third world country
and set up shop. cheap labor. the only way to stop them is if there's no
place to run. the only way to do that is to make all people free, and not
let any small group take advantage of the larger group anywhere.
>
> >i'm ignorning the terrorism comment because it's nonsense, and i'm tired
of
> >that word being misused.
>
> Here is a list of Terrorist targets/incidents the US has either
> supported or led:
> http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
>
some of those are legitimate war crimes, some are complete nonsense. none
of them, although i didn't sift through the whole list, are the US causing
destruction w/ the intent of scarring people into doing what the US wants.
not a one.
> A look at US foreign policy (which is intended to keep the
> non--western world in shambles):
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
>
i'm not even going there. that's utter BS. we've done more to spread
democracy then anyone else since france.
> A review of the book "ROGUE STATE: A Guide to the World's Only
> Superpower, " by William Blum:
> http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/01-09%20FALL/rouguestate.html
> A quote: ""From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States
> attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush
> more than 30 populist- nationalist movements struggling against
> intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for
> several million people, and condemned millions more to a life of agony
> and despair".
>
and russia did the exact same thing. our efforts might have been extreme.
but do you think if we had sat and done nothing, like you're suggesting,
that stalin and his successors would have stopped their push to take over
eurasia? and it's not communism, let's be clear on that. the political and
economic system in russia and china is and was not communism. it was a
military dictatorship or oligarchy. very few people controlling everyone
else. w/ very, very harsh penalties to the enemies of the state. sure the
west (not just the US) did some nasty shit, but the end was a good thing.
eddie
> Justin.
JettKarma
>
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>news:3d2b4ba5...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
>> adding:
>> >my problem w/ W is the same as my problem w/ saddam. (got it right that
>> >time, justin). they both like dictatorships.
>>
>> Then concentrate on the problems in your own backyard before you blow
>> up someone elses. You have one wicked government. And I don't mean
>> that in the gnarly/rad/tubular/bodacious sense :)
>>
>
>isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
>through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon and
>bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
>ignoring the situation.
>**********************************************************************
Most countries don't complain that we callously ignore them. They
generally complain that we've got our long nose stuck up where it
don't belong. Not that they wouldn't complain that we're callously
ignoring the situation...and that they don't...but, the people who
have us worried right now are not people who fear we've ignored them,
you have to admit. They're the ones who think we're too involved in
their region.
>> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
>
>? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>*********************************************************************
You know what he means. As horrid as Sept. 11th was, it's not much
compared to the ongoing terrorism in other countries where 10s of
thousands or 100s of thousands of people have been killed through
terrorist acts--both small scale and governmental.
>>I'd
>> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
>> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
>>
>
>eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't bug
>me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of retaliation
>from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
>************************************************************************
Wow. That sounds enlightened. It kind of sounds like the attitude
that might have at least helped a bit to get us into the mess we found
ourselves in.
Besides which, our foreign policy right now very much is being
dictated by fear of retaliation from fanatics, in case you haven't
noticed. I agree that it *shouldn't* be dictated and hysterically
driven by this fear, but it is.
>eddie f hill
>
>> Justin.
>
--Jett
SiR.B
>> citizens are complaining about it.
>
>not saying you can't complain. just saying it's "damn if we do, damn if we
>don't."
Fair enough, I misinterpreted you. I still don't agree though, if
people are going to complain no matter what you do, do the right
rather than the wrong thing.
>> Hypocrisy. You wouldn't want other countries sticking their noses in
>> to your business would you?
>
>you all want to send a force to investigate the 2000 elections i'm all for
>it. get the UN involved. i'm ALL for it.
I can't imagine dubbya being all for it, or most of the rest of your
population. What about if we decided to investigate your CIA, and then
charge them for war crimes?
>> So you're saying democracy is the saviour? It wasn't last year, or the
>> year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, or
>> the....
>
>democracy is the savior, actually. democracies don't attack each other.
>free people don't have a beef w/ free people in another country just because
>they're in another country. if there's going to be any of the change that
>can save human kind everyone must be free first. or at least almost
>everyone. we're no where near that.
The US is a democracy, but its people are far from free, you do what
your government tells you. Democracy is simply choosing which dictator
you want to fuck you. Democracy won't fix world overpopulation, it
won't fix the stripping of the earth, it won't fix the disenchantment
of the entire western world. In a lot of ways democracy makes it all
worse.
>> >> You guys have fucked up the world and your own land just as
>> >> much as anyone else, yet you continue to think the way you live is the
>> >> right way. It's not. There is no one right way, but there are lots of
>> >> wrong ways, and yours is one of them.
>> >
>> >all i'm saying is that ours are better then dictators and oligarchies and
>> >military run countries. that's it. if you don't agree... well...
>>
>> You prop up many of the worst dictators and oppressive regimes while
>> attacking and killing civilians in ones that are among the higher in
>> standard of living. Imagine where Cuba would be now if it wasn't for
>> all the CIA led bullshit and the economic sanctions.
>
>imagine where cuba would be now if it wasn't for russia's financial aid.
>this gets us nowhere.
How does your countries criminal behaviour compare to anothers
financial aid? Are you saying that dropping cluster bombs on coutries
is the same as dropping aid packages?
>> >> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>> >>
>> >> It was an attack, wait till your people are too scared to drink water,
>> >> too scared to go into a subway, live in constant fear....
>> >
>> >won't happen
>>
>> Denial isn't going to save you, I would put money down that if you
>> attack Iraq, you will suffer.
>
>and i'll put money that if we don't we'll still suffer. plus iraqis suffer.
>lesser of two evils. just becaus their are consequences doesn't mean it's
>not the right thing to do.
Do you know the suffering your country has caused Iraq citizens via
sanctions?
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/
>do you know the stuff saddam's done to his people? really? and you think
>the US should turn a blind eye? what about oz? or russia? should anyone
>care? or just screw 'em, because they're not important to us.
They're not ours to look after, let the people revolt if that's what
they want to do. If you ran a referrendum in Iraq and asked the people
if they wanted the US (or the UN) to attack them and re-instate a new
government, I'd shut up, but you are talking about saving someone who
doesn't want to be saved...."for their own good".
>> You're like the big tough bully in primary school, throwing your
>> weight around and saying how good you are. There isn't anything super
>> about that. Super means superior, and I don't think you guys are.
>> (Which is why I put it in quotes).
>
>super:
>Of a higher nature or kind.
>Of great value or excellence; extraordinary.
>
>there's more, but that's enough. means more.
Superpower: "A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear
power that dominates its allies or client states in an international
power bloc."
Dominates being a key term, there is nothing nice about being a
superpower, it's a manipulative self serving state.
>> > >as for saying we should be leading, i agree. we should be leading. we
>need
>> >the help of the other free countries. the current admin. isn't pushing
>> >that... they should.
>>
>> No, you need to fix your country so you're no longer raping it and the
>> rest of the world, then help other countries to do the same. You have
>> the opposite goal however.
>
>i'm assuming you're talking about not living sustainably. i got news for
>you, no one's doing that now. and no one will do that until we all take
>care of the more pressing problems. this will bite us all in the butt in 50
>or 100 years or whatever. the problem w/ dictators and whoever killing
>people now is biting us in the but now. one, then the other.
>
>the world can't make the change we need to until everyone is free. how
>could it? if the US made laws or whatever to stop corporations from
>destorying the place for a buck they'd just move to a third world country
>and set up shop. cheap labor. the only way to stop them is if there's no
>place to run. the only way to do that is to make all people free, and not
>let any small group take advantage of the larger group anywhere.
No, you start living in a way that is self sustaining and fulfilling
to your people, and everyone will copy it. The fact is, you are in a
position to stop that from happening worldwide, and you are further
manipulating the situation to make sure it can't happen anywhere else.
Whenever any group inside your country decides to not play by your
rules, they get murdered by your government.
>> >i'm ignorning the terrorism comment because it's nonsense, and i'm tired
>of
>> >that word being misused.
>>
>> Here is a list of Terrorist targets/incidents the US has either
>> supported or led:
>> http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
>
>some of those are legitimate war crimes, some are complete nonsense. none
>of them, although i didn't sift through the whole list, are the US causing
>destruction w/ the intent of scarring people into doing what the US wants.
>not a one.
Vietnam? The US wanted democracy in Vietnam, so it attacked it with
napalm and cluster bombs etc etc until you got your arses kicked and
had to pull out.
>
>> A look at US foreign policy (which is intended to keep the
>> non--western world in shambles):
>> http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
>
>i'm not even going there. that's utter BS. we've done more to spread
>democracy then anyone else since france.
You won't even go there.... What denial....
I won't let you avoid it, I'll quote some things for you.
Contrary to this traditional perspective endorsed by then President of
the United States Jimmy Carter, the aims of U.S. foreign policy -
which has consistently dominated international relations in the
post-war period - were essentially to attain and enforce a global
system in which the Western powers under American leadership would
maintain global dominance. This essentially meant being in control of
the world’s resources at the expense of non-Western nations. This
fundamental objective of foreign policy in the post-war period is
candidly indicated by a notorious declassified top-secret report
produced by the U.S. State Department’s policy planning staff, headed
at the time (February 1948) by George Kennan:
We have about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent
of its population... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a
pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this
position of disparity without positive detriment to our national
security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
and day-dreaming. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the
luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk
about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising
of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when
we will have to deal in straight power concepts.
----------------------------------------------------
In his study, The Ambiguities of Power, Mark Curtis who is now with
the UK-based charity Action Aid concludes that:
Mutual Anglo-American support in ordering the affairs of key nations
and regions, often with violence, to their design has been a
consistent feature of the era that followed the Second World War.
Policy in, for example, Malaya, Kenya, British Guiana and Iran was
geared towards organising Third World economies along guidelines in
which British, and Western, interests would be paramount, and those of
the often malnourished populations would be ignored or further
undermined. Similarly, US interventions overseas - in Vietnam,
Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Chile, etcetera - were
designed to counter threats to the Western practice of assigning the
Third World to mere client status to Western business interests.
British and US forces have acted as mercenary - and often extremely
violent - mobs intended to restore ‘order’ in their domains and to
preserve the existing privileges of elites within their own societies.
There is a lot more, but you won't read it.
>> A review of the book "ROGUE STATE: A Guide to the World's Only
>> Superpower, " by William Blum:
>> http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/01-09%20FALL/rouguestate.html
>> A quote: ""From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States
>> attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush
>> more than 30 populist- nationalist movements struggling against
>> intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for
>> several million people, and condemned millions more to a life of agony
>> and despair".
>
>and russia did the exact same thing. our efforts might have been extreme.
>but do you think if we had sat and done nothing, like you're suggesting,
>that stalin and his successors would have stopped their push to take over
>eurasia? and it's not communism, let's be clear on that. the political and
>economic system in russia and china is and was not communism. it was a
>military dictatorship or oligarchy. very few people controlling everyone
>else. w/ very, very harsh penalties to the enemies of the state. sure the
>west (not just the US) did some nasty shit, but the end was a good thing.
Ends justify the means eh? Killing millions of innocent people was a
justifyable thing because, at the end of the day, might is right and
America is now the only "superpower".
I look at the state of the world, look at the huge hand the US have
had in getting it here, and see you as self serving maniplulators.
Your patriotism is like a religion, it allows your government to get
away with evil disgusting behaviour to prop itself up while your
people sing "God bless America" and pledge allegiance in your schools.
Justin.
Scott Mansell
<eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Scott Mansell" <man...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3d2c3225....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>> >> Stop being such fucking hypocrites and start being responsible in your
>> >> role as the one true global superpower
>> >>
>> >
>> >HA! you're suggesting our role as a superpower is to stay out of the way
>> >while repressive governments have their way on a region? nope. it's
>time
>> >we stepped up to our role of a superpower and stop tolerating regimes
>like
>> >iraq and the taliban and iran.
>> >
>> >eddie
>> >
>>
>> No, obviously there are grounds for intervention in some cases. (Yes I
>> am aware of the debate about how far national soverignty should go)
>> The removal of the Taliban might be considered one - but did you
>> really need to bomb the shit out of the Afghans?
>>
>
>i guess we could have asked the taliban nicely if they'd leave...
Couldn't you have used special OPs to a greater extent?
>> But my point is more subtle. Lets look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is
>> their democratically elected leader. He is a socialist. SO what? The
>> people voted him in - thats democracy. He has some friends who you
>> don't like - Castro, Saddam etc. He also has oil and gives it at a
>> reduced price to Cuba. So you dont like him. Its pretty clear that
>> your government covertly supported a coup against Chavez back in April
>> - you supported a coup against a democratically elected leader,
>> breaking OAS treaties in the process.
>>
>
>right. which is unacceptable. i don't support that action at all.
>
>> That is but one example of the US's arrogance "we can do whatever we
>> want". That is my problem. You were attacked on 9/11, and I do feel
>> for you, and yes you had the right to capture those responsible - but
>> to go on a blind assualt, labelling everyone you don't like as a
>> terrorist, I think is taking it a bit too far.
>>
>
>and, of course, i agree.
>
>a lot of dictators are in power because we put them there. this is also
>wrong. i'm not saying US foreign policy is always right. i often disagree.
>and the few times i agree w/ it, the reasons i support the action are
>different then the real reason we're doing it. iraq being a great example.
>i think saddam should be gone because he's repressive and kills his
>citizens. W wants rid of him because he peeved off daddy.
Yes but surely you see the difference between what the US should do,
and what it actually does. You support dictators who advance your
national interests - the others you label terrorists. Just because a
country is not "with you" does not mean that it is "against you"
>> I don't for a second think that the US gives a shit about human
>> rights. Maybe Carter did, maybe Clinton did (but to a lesser extent)
>> But your republican presidents (post Nixon anyway) have not. You have
>> supported regimes in the past, such as Somoza in Nicaragua, who have
>> breached human rights to such an extent that any attempt by the US now
>> to stand up and say 'we believe in human rights' is laughable.
>>
>
>well, i believe in human rights. and i expect my government to act
>accordingly. and, of course, they don't always. that doesn't mean they
>shouldn't. they should.
Well then perhaps our opinions arent as far apart as I first thought.
S.
Scott Mansell
<eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Scott Mansell" <man...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3d2c3614....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>> >isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
>> >through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon
>and
>> >bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
>> >ignoring the situation.
>>
>> Why not take a Marshall Plan/Truman doctrine approach to your foreign
>> policy?
>>
>
>a great plan that did a lot for europe. western europe's been at peace
>since WWII!!! has w. europe EVER had that long of a period w/o a major war?
>eastern europe's got troubles because of the collapse of the soviet union
>and the power vacuum there. but that'll be worked out shortly, and life
>will go on. NATO should move into eastern europe and ensure democracy
>there. and to some extent they're doing that.
Well I have a cynical friend who believes that the Marshall Plan (etc)
was purely to promote capitalism - Im not so sure. No, good policy,
I'd like to see more of it.
>> >> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
>> >
>> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>> >
>> >>I'd
>> >> suggest kicking up a *major* stink about your government not learning
>> >> from its mistakes and pulling its head in.
>> >>
>> >
>> >eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't
>bug
>> >me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of
>retaliation
>> >from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
>> >
>>
>> but if thats the international climate, then surely your foreign
>> policy must take it into account?
>
>i disagree. we shouldn't let dictators kill people just because if we
>overthrow them someone will blow up a bomb here in the states. that's weak.
>if you value human rights, you'll protect them even when it's not convenient
>for you. W's done a horrible job drumming up support for ousting saddam.
>mostly because he doesn't care. i don't agree w/ that strategy. i'd prefer
>to see russia take the lead role in this one. this is their backyard.
Why cant it be the UN, why does it have to be unilateral?
Ji-nay
>
> "Chaim" <cupin...@aol.coma> wrote in message
> news:20020710025339...@mb-mw.aol.com...
> > Jennifer said:
> >
> > >
> > >That's the way the Americans certaintly like to view it, sure. I
do,
> > >however, think that it's a great insult to the other allied troops
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > What you have said is completely true, and only adds to the
ridiculousness
> of
> > the American mentality. Obviously, things are more important when
the US
> does
> > tham than they are when done by other countries...
> >
>
> the US certainly turned the tide in that war. you can't honestly
believe
> russia and the UK would have beaten germany on their own???
>
> eddie
Chaim can obviously speak for himself and correct me if I've
misunderstood, but I think he was agreeing with me that many in the U.S.
swagger about like they won the entire war blindfolded, with one arm
tied behind their backs. That the contribution the other allied
countries made *the whole 6 years of the war* was unimportant and
unnecessary.
-Jennifer
SiR.B
presence, adding:
>Chaim can obviously speak for himself and correct me if I've
>misunderstood, but I think he was agreeing with me that many in the U.S.
>swagger about like they won the entire war blindfolded, with one arm
>tied behind their backs. That the contribution the other allied
>countries made *the whole 6 years of the war* was unimportant and
>unnecessary.
You're not wrong:
Losses: (Military & Civilian)
Soviet Union 21,300,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Rumania 985,000
France 810,000
Hungary 750,000
Austria 525,000
Greece 520,000
Italy 410,000
Czechoslovakia 400,000
Great Britain 388,000
USA 295,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 39,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000
Spain 22,000
Bulgaria 21,000
New Zealand 12,000
South Africa 9,000
Norway 5,000
Denmark 4,000
It really started when Germany invaded Poland (September 1, 1939). The
US didn't get involved until 2 years later, when Japan attacked Pearl
Harbour, Hawaii (December 7, 1941) killing 2,400 soldiers and sailors.
Japan surrendered less than a month after "Little Boy" and "Fatman"
were dropped on Hiroshima (August 6th, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9th,
1945) respectively, killing an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and
injuring another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died
from injuries or radiation.
Scary times for everyone.
Justin.
Russil Wvong
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
> Contrary to this traditional perspective endorsed by then President of
> the United States Jimmy Carter, the aims of U.S. foreign policy -
> which has consistently dominated international relations in the
> post-war period - were essentially to attain and enforce a global
> system in which the Western powers under American leadership would
> maintain global dominance. This essentially meant being in control of
> the world's resources at the expense of non-Western nations. This
> fundamental objective of foreign policy in the post-war period is
> candidly indicated by a notorious declassified top-secret report
> produced by the U.S. State Department's policy planning staff, headed
> at the time (February 1948) by George Kennan:
>
> We have about 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent
> of its population... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a
> pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this
> position of disparity without positive detriment to our national
> security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
> and day-dreaming. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the
> luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk
> about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising
> of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when
> we will have to deal in straight power concepts.
In 1945, George Orwell wrote:
Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain
forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations
removed from their context and doctored so as to change their
meaning.
[http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html]
I don't think Orwell would have been surprised by this highly
selective quotation of George Kennan. From what I can tell, it was
stitched together by Noam Chomsky, the American linguist and
anarchist, as evidence that US foreign policy since World War II has
been driven by greed.
In fact, if you look up the source of the quote, PPS/23, you'll
find that Kennan was saying something quite different: given the
disparity between the wealth of the US and the Asian countries --
particularly China and India -- it was pretty much inevitable that
they would fall under Soviet control, and that rather than trying
to keep the Communists from taking over China, the US ought to
prevent a future attack from the Pacific by trying to keep Japan
and the Philippines within the US sphere of influence.
Kennan was particularly concerned about Japan, which had colonized
Korea and Taiwan, invaded Manchuria and China, occupied Indochina,
attacked the US, and invaded Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore,
Burma, and the Philippines, and had only been defeated by the
US after a long and bitter war. As Kennan says in his memoirs:
We Americans could feel fairly secure in the presence of a truly
friendly Japan and a nominally hostile China -- nothing very bad
could happen to us from this combination; but the dangers to our
security of a nominally friendly China and a truly hostile Japan
had already been demonstrated in the Pacific war. Worse still
would be a hostile China *and* a hostile Japan. Yet the triumph
of communism in most of China would be bound to enhance Communist
pressures in Japan; and should these pressures [in Japan] triumph,
as Moscow obviously hoped they would, then the Japan we would have
before us would obviously be a hostile one.
I've included below the section of PPS/23 from which the quote is
taken.
The irony in Chomsky's quoting Kennan to criticize US foreign policy
is that Kennan himself has consistently argued for much greater
moderation and restraint in US foreign policy. Indeed, Kennan does so
even in the section of PPS/23 which Chomsky is quoting. For a
detailed assessment of Kennan's role in shaping US foreign policy
during the early Cold War, see Wilson D. Miscamble's book "George
F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950,"
published in 1992.
In short, Chomsky's quote makes it appear that Kennan is saying
that the US needs to *hold people down*, when in fact Kennan is
saying almost the exact opposite, that the US should *leave them
alone*.
For more information on Kennan, including the full text of PPS/23, see
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan.html.
I would respectfully suggest that you should be careful about uncritically
accepting anti-American propaganda, on the net and elsewhere. As Kennan
wrote in 1961:
The lack of a strong and firm Western historiography in this subject
[of relations between the Soviet Union and the West] is particularly
unfortunate for the reason that Soviet historians have recently been
giving elaborate attention to certain of its phases. The tendency of
their labors has been to establish an image of this historical
process which they conceive to be useful to the present purposes of
the Soviet Communist Party but which is deeply discreditable to
Western statesmanship and to the spirit and ideals of the Western
peoples generally -- so discreditable, in fact, that if the Western
peoples could be brought to believe it, they would have no choice
but to abandon their faith in themselves and the traditions of
their national life.
[Russia and the West, 1961, p. v]
--
The section of PPS/23 from which Chomsky is quoting:
VII. FAR EAST
My main impression with regard to the position of this Government
with regard to the Far East is that we are greatly over-extended
in our whole thinking about what we can accomplish, and should try
to accomplish, in that area. This applies, unfortunately, to the
people in our country as well as to the Government.
It is urgently necessary that we recognize our own limitations as
a moral and ideological force among the Asiatic peoples.
Our political philosophy and our patterns for living have very
little applicability to masses of people in Asia. They may be all
right for us, with our highly developed political traditions
running back into the centuries and with our peculiarly favorable
geographic position; but they are simply not practical or helpful,
today, for most of the people in Asia.
This being the case, we must be very careful when we speak of
exercising "leadership" in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and
others when we pretend to have the answers to the problems which
agitate many of these Asiatic peoples.
Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3%
of its population. This disparity is particularly great as
between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we
cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real
task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming;
and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that
we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude
toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the
Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the
development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships
in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful
one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples--the Chinese and the
Indians--have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the
basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between
their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some
solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence
are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the
necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact
of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be
long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in
the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying
periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a
greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than
anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably
unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the
diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our
people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense
now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our
thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the
aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a
high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting
ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and
refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should
cease to talk about vague and--for the Far East--unreal objectives
such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have
to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered
by idealistic slogans, the better.
We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in
the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic.
We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific
and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we
should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas
remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own
guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so
far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the
corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can
contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be
no serious threat to our security from the East within our time.
Only when we have assured this first objective, can we allow
ourselves the luxury of going farther afield in our thinking and
our planning.
If these basic concepts are accepted, then our objectives for the
immediate coming period should be:
(a) to liquidate as rapidly as possible our unsound commitments in
China and to recover, vis-a-vis that country, a position of
detachment and freedom of action;
(b) to devise policies with respect to Japan which assure the
security of those islands from communist penetration and
domination as well as from Soviet military attack, and which will
permit the economic potential of that country to become again an
important force in the Far East, responsive to the interests of
peace and stability in the Pacific area; and
(c) to shape our relationship to the Philippines in such a way as
to permit the Philippine Government a continued independence in
all internal affairs but to preserve the archipelago as a bulwark
of U.S. security in that area.
Of these three objectives, the one relating to Japan is the one
where there is the greatest need for immediate attention on the
part of our Government and the greatest possibility for immediate
action. It should therefore be made the focal point of our policy
for the Far East in the coming period.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Vin
SiR.B
adding:
>I've included below the section of PPS/23 from which the quote is
>taken.
Thankyou very much for that Russ, it was quite enlightening, that guy
had his shit together. A good balance of looking after your own
interest while not stepping on too many toes.
I didn't realise that in the quote I gave the "...."'s were actually
huge gaps in the conversation, very effectively changed the meaning, a
misquote to the nth degree.
I do however hold onto my initial idea that the US has been self
serving and has been a detrimental force to the rest of the world in
many regards.
Thankyou for your time putting together your post though, when I get
an argument shot down I appreciate when it is in such a respectful and
informative manner.
Justin.
Institute for Policy Research & Development
saying
that the US needs to *hold people down*, when in fact Kennan is
saying almost the exact opposite, that the US should *leave them
alone*."
This is a straw-man fallacy. In reality, the key value of the quote
from Kennan, which you ignore, is the fact admitted by him that the
U.S. must actively *maintain* the pattern of relationships leading to
a "disparity" in the distribution of the world's wealth and resources.
Your argument is merely polemical and misleading, failing to address
the key point of the quote. Kennan, who is a "liberal", does not
simply say the U.S. should adopt a "hands-off" approach as you falsely
assume. On the contrary, he argues that the U.S. should ignore only
those regions which are not "vital" to U.S. "security", but be
actively *military* and *economically* involved in areas which *are*
"vital".
Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3%
of its population. This disparity is particularly great as
between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we
cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real
task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
without positive detriment to our national security.
How can one interpret this in a benign manner? Kennan is saying that
the U.S. has 50 per cent of the world's wealth, and we ought to
establish and maintain a pattern of relationships in order to
"maintain this position of disparity". The value of this quote is
related to the admission that U.S. policy is directed at *maintaining*
the disparity in the distribution of global resources. He is not
saying that the U.S. should simply tolerate it and stay out of other
people's affairs, he saying quite clearly that the U.S. should
deliberately "devise a pattern" of international relationships
(establish an international order) that permits the U.S. itself to
"maintain" the "disparity".
To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming;
and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that
we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
Kennan is saying that whatever policy the U.S. adopts, "altruism and
world-benefaction" - i.e. humanitarianism - is not a factor. Whether
or not he is advocating a hands-off or hands-on approach is not the
key point here. The point is that humanitarianism is not an integral,
or even peripheral, objective.
Again, the key point here is *not* that Kennan is advocating a
hands-off approach, but rather that he is advocating that the U.S.
should officially reject a foreign policy formulated on the basis of
concerns for regional "human rights, the raising of the living
standards, and democratization". Instead, "straight power concepts"
are the order of the day. The U.S. should not be bothered about
regional domestic problems, and should not attempt to alleviate them.
But does this mean that the U.S. should stay out of Far East affairs?
No, not at all:
We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in
the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic.
We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific
and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we
should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas
remain in hands which we can control or rely on.
And this is the key point. It is true that Kennan is advocating
*against* full-scale military intervention in the Far East. But this
last part clarifies that he is certainly *not* advocating therefore a
"hands-off" approach of not getting involved in the Asian people's own
domestic affairs, as you claim.
On the contrary, he very specifically advocates that the U.S. should
study carefully "what parts" of Asia are "absolutely vital" to U.S.
interests (other U.S. documents illustrate that the term "security"
equates to "interests"). Kennan then advocates that the U.S. should
implement a policy of indirect control - not direct military
interventionism, but indirect control and manipulation: "we should
concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas" of interest
to the U.S. "*remain* in hands which *we* can *control* or *rely* on".
This "influence" is to be achieved through "primarily military and
economic" means. The essentially counter-democratic thrust of U.S.
policy in the "Far East" is thus about maintaing U.S. control over
those regions of U.S. strategic/economic interest through
military/economic influence, in order to "maintain disparity" through
proxy client regimes, regardless of domestic conditions for the
people. Your attempt to absolve Kennan of this fundamental thrust is
disingenuous and fails very simply to account for the key elements of
Kennan's statements.
Full article at: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Executive Director
Institute for Policy Research & Development
Suite 414, 91 Western Road, Brighton,
East Sussex, BN1 2NW, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44(0)1273 32 95 30
Fax: +44(0)1273 70 60 30
Email: in...@globalresearch.org
Web: http://www.globalresearch.org
russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote in message news:<afe9ed76.02071...@posting.google.com>...
Eddie Hill
"JettKarma" <myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i99piu0japf2a30bl...@4ax.com...
> >through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon
and
> >bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
> >ignoring the situation.
> >**********************************************************************
> Most countries don't complain that we callously ignore them.
there was all sorts of belly aching about how we ignore the situation in
rwanda.
> They
> generally complain that we've got our long nose stuck up where it
> don't belong. Not that they wouldn't complain that we're callously
> ignoring the situation...and that they don't...but, the people who
> have us worried right now are not people who fear we've ignored them,
> you have to admit. They're the ones who think we're too involved in
> their region.
>
righto. and problem is that we support the dictators in that region instead
of the people.
> >> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
> >
> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
> >*********************************************************************
> You know what he means. As horrid as Sept. 11th was, it's not much
> compared to the ongoing terrorism in other countries where 10s of
> thousands or 100s of thousands of people have been killed through
> terrorist acts--both small scale and governmental.
>
like where? isreal? n ireland? that's about all i can think of.
> >eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't
bug
> >me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of
retaliation
> >from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
> >************************************************************************
> Wow. That sounds enlightened. It kind of sounds like the attitude
> that might have at least helped a bit to get us into the mess we found
> ourselves in.
>
no. it sounds like an attitude that isn't changed by some what some right
wing crazies do.
and you have to admit, the vast majority of the terrorists that'd like to
blow up things here in the ol' US are, in fact, camel jockeys.
you can complain about my phrasing, if you like.
> Besides which, our foreign policy right now very much is being
> dictated by fear of retaliation from fanatics, in case you haven't
> noticed. I agree that it *shouldn't* be dictated and hysterically
> driven by this fear, but it is.
>
it shouldn't though.
> >eddie f hill
> >
> >> Justin.
> >
> --Jett
>
eddie
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >> I think we have a right to complain, hell, even a lot of your own
> >> citizens are complaining about it.
> >
> >not saying you can't complain. just saying it's "damn if we do, damn if
we
> >don't."
>
> Fair enough, I misinterpreted you. I still don't agree though, if
> people are going to complain no matter what you do, do the right
> rather than the wrong thing.
>
dude! i'm all about doing the right thing! that's what i'm saying.
do you or do you not agree that the right thing is to protect other humans
from governments that are killing them? do you know how many people saddam
has killed? i quoted laurie the number... i can't find it now... but it was
in the millions.
> >
> >you all want to send a force to investigate the 2000 elections i'm all
for
> >it. get the UN involved. i'm ALL for it.
>
> I can't imagine dubbya being all for it, or most of the rest of your
> population.
oh, W'd just LOVE it!!! =)
> What about if we decided to investigate your CIA, and then
> charge them for war crimes?
>
>
i'm all for the international war tribunal as well. w/ a caveat. i think
the only countries on the juries should be countries that have elections.
other then that, go for it.
> >
> >democracy is the savior, actually. democracies don't attack each other.
> >free people don't have a beef w/ free people in another country just
because
> >they're in another country. if there's going to be any of the change
that
> >can save human kind everyone must be free first. or at least almost
> >everyone. we're no where near that.
>
> The US is a democracy, but its people are far from free, you do what
> your government tells you.
plenty of us sure as hell don't. and how many people are in jail? they
don't. all the liberals don't. the misguided fools that voted for nader
sure didn't.
>Democracy is simply choosing which dictator
> you want to fuck you. Democracy won't fix world overpopulation, it
> won't fix the stripping of the earth, it won't fix the disenchantment
> of the entire western world. In a lot of ways democracy makes it all
> worse.
>
fascist countries haven't done anything about those problems either. a
democratic state would fix all those problems.
we're a republic, by the way. not a democracy. that became very apparent
in november of 2000.
> >> You prop up many of the worst dictators and oppressive regimes while
> >> attacking and killing civilians in ones that are among the higher in
> >> standard of living. Imagine where Cuba would be now if it wasn't for
> >> all the CIA led bullshit and the economic sanctions.
> >
> >imagine where cuba would be now if it wasn't for russia's financial aid.
> >this gets us nowhere.
>
> How does your countries criminal behaviour compare to anothers
> financial aid? Are you saying that dropping cluster bombs on coutries
> is the same as dropping aid packages?
>
i dont' think a trade embargo is criminal by any stretch of the word. we
don't have to trade w/ anyone. is cuba in such a sorry state that if the US
doesn't trade w/ them this happens? because that's pretty bad. that would
make them a dependent, would it not?
as for the cluster bomb nonsense, i'm not even going to comment because
you're obviously using heavy handed rhetoric to rile me up. (i should know,
that's one of my favorite tactics)
> >
> >and i'll put money that if we don't we'll still suffer. plus iraqis
suffer.
> >lesser of two evils. just becaus their are consequences doesn't mean
it's
> >not the right thing to do.
>
> Do you know the suffering your country has caused Iraq citizens via
> sanctions?
> http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/
>
you can't blame that all on us. there's still plenty of food and medicine
going in, but saddam is in charge of the distribution. the real damming
thing is that we continue to buy oil from him.
once again, i'm not defending current US policy, i'm just saying what we
*SHOULD* be doing. which is overthrowing dictators and freeing people.
>
> >do you know the stuff saddam's done to his people? really? and you
think
> >the US should turn a blind eye? what about oz? or russia? should
anyone
> >care? or just screw 'em, because they're not important to us.
>
> They're not ours to look after,
no compassion for your fellow humans?
>let the people revolt if that's what
> they want to do.
and be slaughtered in the streets? there've been a lot of revolts in iraq,
for example. the government there has tanks. guess who won.
if laurie was here this is where we'd get into another debate about
non-violent resistance... which still hasn't worked for anyone in a facist
state.
> If you ran a referrendum in Iraq and asked the people
> if they wanted the US (or the UN) to attack them and re-instate a new
> government, I'd shut up, but you are talking about saving someone who
> doesn't want to be saved...."for their own good".
>
how are we going to run a referrendum there? that's just not possible.
plus, the iraqis have had their news fed to them by the government for
decades. judging by the nonsense our mainstream media has to say, i can
only imagine what heights theirs has achieved.
> >
> >super:
> >Of a higher nature or kind.
> >Of great value or excellence; extraordinary.
> >
> >there's more, but that's enough. means more.
>
> Superpower: "A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear
> power that dominates its allies or client states in an international
> power bloc."
>
> Dominates being a key term, there is nothing nice about being a
> superpower, it's a manipulative self serving state.
>
all states are self serving, in the end. and dominates does not mean
represses.
> >
> >i'm assuming you're talking about not living sustainably. i got news for
> >you, no one's doing that now. and no one will do that until we all take
> >care of the more pressing problems. this will bite us all in the butt in
50
> >or 100 years or whatever. the problem w/ dictators and whoever killing
> >people now is biting us in the but now. one, then the other.
> >
> >the world can't make the change we need to until everyone is free. how
> >could it? if the US made laws or whatever to stop corporations from
> >destorying the place for a buck they'd just move to a third world country
> >and set up shop. cheap labor. the only way to stop them is if there's
no
> >place to run. the only way to do that is to make all people free, and
not
> >let any small group take advantage of the larger group anywhere.
>
> No, you start living in a way that is self sustaining and fulfilling
> to your people, and everyone will copy it. The fact is, you are in a
> position to stop that from happening worldwide, and you are further
> manipulating the situation to make sure it can't happen anywhere else.
>
what the heck are you talking about? now we're bad because we're doing the
same thing people have been doing for thousands of years? i don't see
australia living sustainably either? i don't see anyone doing it. but
because the US doesn't you're going to criticize and say we're the devil?
whatever
i think laurie left her anti-american blinders w/ you when she went to
holland.
> Whenever any group inside your country decides to not play by your
> rules, they get murdered by your government.
>
who's that? you referring to the folks down in waco that were stockpiling
weapons? what?
> >some of those are legitimate war crimes, some are complete nonsense.
none
> >of them, although i didn't sift through the whole list, are the US
causing
> >destruction w/ the intent of scarring people into doing what the US
wants.
> >not a one.
>
> Vietnam? The US wanted democracy in Vietnam, so it attacked it with
> napalm and cluster bombs etc etc until you got your arses kicked and
> had to pull out.
>
i don't know what the specific weapons have to do w/ anything... moving on.
find anyplace i said that it was a good idea to do what we did in vietnam,
then get back to me.
and, explain how our presence there constitutes a war crime, will you?
> >i'm not even going there. that's utter BS. we've done more to spread
> >democracy then anyone else since france.
>
> You won't even go there.... What denial....
who's done more? we saved europe from the right wing, remember? russia's
now a democracy. if we had let their dictators have their way in the 50s
and beyond they wouldn't be.
take out vietnam from that list and i'll agree.
and, yes, nationalism was often confused w/ communism.
> British and US forces have acted as mercenary - and often extremely
> violent - mobs intended to restore 'order' in their domains and to
> preserve the existing privileges of elites within their own societies.
>
> There is a lot more, but you won't read it.
>
i did skim it, actually. there's nothing new in there. just some random
internet dude spouting off at the mouth. there are plenty of those people
here. what, am i supposed to read it and just see the light or something?
AND, goddammit, i'm saying what the US should be doing, not what we have
done. the two are different.
> >
> >and russia did the exact same thing. our efforts might have been
extreme.
> >but do you think if we had sat and done nothing, like you're suggesting,
> >that stalin and his successors would have stopped their push to take over
> >eurasia? and it's not communism, let's be clear on that. the political
and
> >economic system in russia and china is and was not communism. it was a
> >military dictatorship or oligarchy. very few people controlling everyone
> >else. w/ very, very harsh penalties to the enemies of the state. sure
the
> >west (not just the US) did some nasty shit, but the end was a good thing.
>
> Ends justify the means eh? Killing millions of innocent people was a
> justifyable thing because, at the end of the day, might is right and
> America is now the only "superpower".
>
at the end of the day eastern europe is or will be democratic in 20 years.
russia is a democracy. the majority of north america. western europe.
parts of asia. all of australia. parts of africa.
long live the revolution!
> I look at the state of the world, look at the huge hand the US have
> had in getting it here, and see you as self serving maniplulators.
get over the self serving thing. all countries are inheriently self
serving. you shouldn't be so surprised. and when i suggest we should have
the decency to help out other people in horrible situations, you get all hot
and bothered and ask why it's our business. because we are a super power.
it's not a role that we chose, it's what history dealt us.
> Your patriotism is like a religion, it allows your government to get
> away with evil disgusting behaviour to prop itself up while your
> people sing "God bless America" and pledge allegiance in your schools.
>
lately, yes
eddie
> Justin.
Eddie Hill
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:04:47 GMT, "Eddie Hill"
> <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Mansell" <man...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:3d2c3225....@news.akl.ihug.co.nz...
> >>
> >
> >i guess we could have asked the taliban nicely if they'd leave...
>
> Couldn't you have used special OPs to a greater extent?
>
how should i know?
i would imagine not though. special ops are a lot cheaper then flying
around airplanes. if we could have done it the cheaper way, we would have.
W's little deficit is starting to get him into trouble.
> >
> >a lot of dictators are in power because we put them there. this is also
> >wrong. i'm not saying US foreign policy is always right. i often
disagree.
> >and the few times i agree w/ it, the reasons i support the action are
> >different then the real reason we're doing it. iraq being a great
example.
> >i think saddam should be gone because he's repressive and kills his
> >citizens. W wants rid of him because he peeved off daddy.
>
> Yes but surely you see the difference between what the US should do,
> and what it actually does. You support dictators who advance your
> national interests - the others you label terrorists. Just because a
> country is not "with you" does not mean that it is "against you"
>
we shouldn't do that. we agree on this point.
> >
> >well, i believe in human rights. and i expect my government to act
> >accordingly. and, of course, they don't always. that doesn't mean they
> >shouldn't. they should.
>
> Well then perhaps our opinions arent as far apart as I first thought.
i'm saying...
eddie
> S.
Eddie Hill
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:08:54 GMT, "Eddie Hill"
> <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >a great plan that did a lot for europe. western europe's been at peace
> >since WWII!!! has w. europe EVER had that long of a period w/o a major
war?
> >eastern europe's got troubles because of the collapse of the soviet union
> >and the power vacuum there. but that'll be worked out shortly, and life
> >will go on. NATO should move into eastern europe and ensure democracy
> >there. and to some extent they're doing that.
>
> Well I have a cynical friend who believes that the Marshall Plan (etc)
> was purely to promote capitalism - Im not so sure. No, good policy,
> I'd like to see more of it.
>
i'm sure it did that too... don't know if that's why it was implemented or
not... but i dont' really care either. it did good things for europe. i'm
happy. no more wars there. we can move on to other regions.
> >>
> >> but if thats the international climate, then surely your foreign
> >> policy must take it into account?
> >
> >i disagree. we shouldn't let dictators kill people just because if we
> >overthrow them someone will blow up a bomb here in the states. that's
weak.
> >if you value human rights, you'll protect them even when it's not
convenient
> >for you. W's done a horrible job drumming up support for ousting saddam.
> >mostly because he doesn't care. i don't agree w/ that strategy. i'd
prefer
> >to see russia take the lead role in this one. this is their backyard.
>
> Why cant it be the UN, why does it have to be unilateral?
>
UN's fine. i'm more of a fan of NATO, however. the UN doesn't have a good
record of running military operations. plus, NATO's more an organization of
free countries. UN is free and, uh, not free...
eddie
SiR.B
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>> people are going to complain no matter what you do, do the right
>> rather than the wrong thing.
>
>dude! i'm all about doing the right thing! that's what i'm saying.
There's not much point to this, we see this issue differently to
bother discussing it. You think the right thing to do is to bomb the
bejesus out of countries who don't follow your political system
(democracy or death!) and I think you should mind your own business
and fix america before you fix the world (glass houses throwing
stones).
Time will tell, no doubt.
Justin.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Ji-nay" <igotfoots...@hotmail.com> blessed us with their
> presence, adding:
> >Chaim can obviously speak for himself and correct me if I've
> >misunderstood, but I think he was agreeing with me that many in the U.S.
> >swagger about like they won the entire war blindfolded, with one arm
> >tied behind their backs. That the contribution the other allied
> >countries made *the whole 6 years of the war* was unimportant and
> >unnecessary.
>
> You're not wrong:
>
> Losses: (Military & Civilian)
the key being the civilian part. lots cities got bombed.
just thought i'd point that out
eddie
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >I've included below the section of PPS/23 from which the quote is
> >taken.
>
> Thankyou very much for that Russ, it was quite enlightening, that guy
> had his shit together.
You're welcome! George Kennan was one of the key architects of the early
Cold War (he was the author of the anonymous "X" article in Foreign
Affairs), so if you're interested in US foreign policy, you may want to
check out more of his writings. I've set up a web page with links to as
many of them as I could find:
[http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan.html]
If you have time, you may also want to look up Wilson Miscamble's
"George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950".
(Miscamble's Australian, by the way.)
> A good balance of looking after your own interest while not stepping
> on too many toes.
That's it exactly.
> I didn't realise that in the quote I gave the "...."'s were actually
> huge gaps in the conversation, very effectively changed the meaning, a
> misquote to the nth degree.
>
> I do however hold onto my initial idea that the US has been self
> serving and has been a detrimental force to the rest of the world in
> many regards.
Depends where you look, I think. In Vietnam and Central America,
I'd have to agree that US foreign policy was immoral. In Western
Europe (particularly Germany) and Japan, though, I think the US
achievements were amazing -- today Germany and Japan are stable,
democratic, prosperous societies, which would have been hard to
imagine at the end of World War II. In Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, things don't look as rosy, but the US did
succeed in containing the Soviet Union without having to go to
war against it (for which we can all be very thankful).
> Thankyou for your time putting together your post though, when I get
> an argument shot down I appreciate when it is in such a respectful and
> informative manner.
You're welcome, and thanks for your response!
If anyone else reading this thread is interested in US foreign policy
(or international politics in general), you may want to check out
alt.politics.international. It's a relatively new group, so we don't
have many regulars yet.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
> >I've included below the section of PPS/23 from which the quote is
> >taken.
>
> Thankyou very much for that Russ, it was quite enlightening, that guy
> interest while not stepping on too many toes.
>
> huge gaps in the conversation, very effectively changed the meaning, a
> misquote to the nth degree.
>
> I do however hold onto my initial idea that the US has been self
> serving and has been a detrimental force to the rest of the world in
> many regards.
and a very positive force for a lot of the world in many regards.
we're not perfect. we are, however, a huge power, and that should be used
for good. not put into storage as we go into an isolationistic phase.
and, hey, i've heard you criticize us many a time for being so unaware of
the rest of the world. if we stop getting involved in places what do you
think will happen? we'll become even more unaware.
eddie
>
> Thankyou for your time putting together your post though, when I get
> an argument shot down I appreciate when it is in such a respectful and
> informative manner.
>
> Justin.
Eddie Hill
thank you. i've never read the whole thing before. good stuff.
eddie
"Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afe9ed76.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Si...@gimme.a.kiss (SiR.B) quotes Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed:
> > http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
> > Contrary to this traditional perspective endorsed by then President of
> > the United States Jimmy Carter, the aims of U.S. foreign policy -
> > which has consistently dominated international relations in the
> > post-war period - were essentially to attain and enforce a global
> > system in which the Western powers under American leadership would
> > maintain global dominance. This essentially meant being in control of
> > the world's resources at the expense of non-Western nations. This
> > fundamental objective of foreign policy in the post-war period is
> > candidly indicated by a notorious declassified top-secret report
> > produced by the U.S. State Department's policy planning staff, headed
> > at the time (February 1948) by George Kennan:
> >
> > We have about 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent
> > of its population... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a
> > pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this
> > position of disparity without positive detriment to our national
> > security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
> > and day-dreaming. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the
> > luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk
> > about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising
> > of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when
> > we will have to deal in straight power concepts.
>
> I've included below the section of PPS/23 from which the quote is
> taken.
>
> cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real
> task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
> which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
> without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
> will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming;
> and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
SiR.B
adding:
>and, hey, i've heard you criticize us many a time for being so unaware of
>the rest of the world. if we stop getting involved in places what do you
>think will happen? we'll become even more unaware.
That's totally rediculous, since when does education equal
interference? Do you need to control something to understand it? Can
you not observe from afar?
Justin.
Eddie Hill
wow
and i'm officially bowing out because i'm out of my league
eddie
"Institute for Policy Research & Development" <in...@globalresearch.org>
wrote in message news:a259fc06.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Russil says: "In short, Chomsky's quote makes it appear that Kennan is
> saying
> that the US needs to *hold people down*, when in fact Kennan is
> saying almost the exact opposite, that the US should *leave them
> alone*."
>
> This is a straw-man fallacy. In reality, the key value of the quote
> from Kennan, which you ignore, is the fact admitted by him that the
> U.S. must actively *maintain* the pattern of relationships leading to
> a "disparity" in the distribution of the world's wealth and resources.
> Your argument is merely polemical and misleading, failing to address
> the key point of the quote. Kennan, who is a "liberal", does not
> simply say the U.S. should adopt a "hands-off" approach as you falsely
> assume. On the contrary, he argues that the U.S. should ignore only
> those regions which are not "vital" to U.S. "security", but be
> actively *military* and *economically* involved in areas which *are*
> "vital".
>
>
> Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3%
> of its population. This disparity is particularly great as
> between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we
> cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real
> task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
> which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
> without positive detriment to our national security.
>
> How can one interpret this in a benign manner? Kennan is saying that
> the U.S. has 50 per cent of the world's wealth, and we ought to
> establish and maintain a pattern of relationships in order to
> "maintain this position of disparity". The value of this quote is
> related to the admission that U.S. policy is directed at *maintaining*
> the disparity in the distribution of global resources. He is not
> saying that the U.S. should simply tolerate it and stay out of other
> people's affairs, he saying quite clearly that the U.S. should
> deliberately "devise a pattern" of international relationships
> (establish an international order) that permits the U.S. itself to
> "maintain" the "disparity".
>
> To do so, we
> will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming;
> and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
> immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that
> we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
>
> Kennan is saying that whatever policy the U.S. adopts, "altruism and
> world-benefaction" - i.e. humanitarianism - is not a factor. Whether
> or not he is advocating a hands-off or hands-on approach is not the
> key point here. The point is that humanitarianism is not an integral,
> or even peripheral, objective.
>
> Again, the key point here is *not* that Kennan is advocating a
> hands-off approach, but rather that he is advocating that the U.S.
> should officially reject a foreign policy formulated on the basis of
> concerns for regional "human rights, the raising of the living
> standards, and democratization". Instead, "straight power concepts"
> are the order of the day. The U.S. should not be bothered about
> regional domestic problems, and should not attempt to alleviate them.
> But does this mean that the U.S. should stay out of Far East affairs?
> No, not at all:
>
> We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in
> the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic.
> We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific
> and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we
> should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas
> remain in hands which we can control or rely on.
>
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> "Eddie Hill" blessed us with their presence, adding:
> >"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> >> people are going to complain no matter what you do, do the right
> >> rather than the wrong thing.
> >
>
> There's not much point to this, we see this issue differently to
> bother discussing it. You think the right thing to do is to bomb the
> bejesus out of countries who don't follow your political system
> (democracy or death!) and I think you should mind your own business
> and fix america before you fix the world (glass houses throwing
> stones).
>
no one country will ever be perfect. to ignore all the people that have it
worse off until you get it 100% seems silly to me.
long live the revolution!
eddie che hill
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>> bother discussing it. You think the right thing to do is to bomb the
>> bejesus out of countries who don't follow your political system
>> (democracy or death!) and I think you should mind your own business
>> and fix america before you fix the world (glass houses throwing
>> stones).
>
>no one country will ever be perfect. to ignore all the people that have it
>worse off until you get it 100% seems silly to me.
No one expects you to be perfect, as there is no such thing as a
perfect country. My point is that your system is not working, so it's
not just dense but destructive to push it on other countries.
2010 watch it go to fire.
Justin.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
if we're not involved in world politics what reason do we have to keep up w/
them?
eddie
> Justin.
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
>news:3d2da816...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> blessed us with their presence,
>> adding:
>> >and, hey, i've heard you criticize us many a time for being so unaware of
>> >the rest of the world. if we stop getting involved in places what do you
>> >think will happen? we'll become even more unaware.
>>
>> That's totally rediculous, since when does education equal
>> interference? Do you need to control something to understand it? Can
>> you not observe from afar?
>
>if we're not involved in world politics what reason do we have to keep up w/
>them?
To stop yourselves from being ignorant maybe?
Justin.
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
and i'm saying it's better then the system's we're taking down.
are you saying that europe and russia have not benefited from our
involvement?
edie
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
...yea... that'll happen...
e
> Justin.
Rob DeFrancesco
Good god this is getting ridiculous. 2010 watch it go to fire... Gimme a
break already.
Justin, you're an intelligent guy. If we're so evil, please stop supporting
the U.S.' other form of global domination: Cultural Imperialism. This
contributes just as much shit as our political system does to the world, so
please let us know how things are going for you when you quit using Windows,
watching any Hollywood originated flicks, and... listening to Pearl Jam.
We're so evil. So quit contributing to the evil Cultural Imperialists.
Also, take your own advice for once. Mind your own business and do something
about the shit going on in your own country. Oz ain't perfect, right? And if
it is, then quit your finger pointing and come to the U.S. and help us do
something about it. Otherwise, whatever.
Rob, who actually has to work for a living and can't spend all day pointing
out other people's faults, so I'll check in later when I get a break from
actually doing something with my day.
> Justin.
Russil Wvong
> thank you. i've never read the whole thing before. good stuff.
You're welcome!
Ji-nay
>
> "SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
> news:3d2ca6a5...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip only to save some 12 kb of space>
> > I look at the state of the world, look at the huge hand the US have
> > had in getting it here, and see you as self serving maniplulators.
>
> get over the self serving thing. all countries are inheriently self
> serving. you shouldn't be so surprised. and when i suggest we
should have
> the decency to help out other people in horrible situations, you get
all hot
> and bothered and ask why it's our business. because we are a super
power.
> it's not a role that we chose, it's what history dealt us.
I must sympathize with Eddie's position here. As much as previous and
current American administrations have done a lot of bad things (and
they're not the only ones, I know), they truly are in a damned if they
do, damned if they don't position. They're never going to be able to
please all of the people all of the time; someone's always going to
think they've gone too far or haven't gone far enough.
(This is not to excuse them for any abuse of power, mind you. And I'll
be the first to admit to occasionally being incensed by American
policy...and Canada's subsequent impotency in dealing with said policy!)
-Jennifer
Russil Wvong
> Russil says: "In short, Chomsky's quote makes it appear that Kennan is
> saying that the US needs to *hold people down*, when in fact Kennan is
> saying almost the exact opposite, that the US should *leave them
> alone*."
>
> This is a straw-man fallacy.
Cool! First of all, thanks for responding! (I was thinking that I ought
to send you e-mail about the Kennan quote.)
I assume you hadn't seen PPS/23 itself at the time you wrote the article?
I'm definitely not trying to be polemical or misleading, which is
why I included the full text of the relevant section of PPS/23, to let
readers judge for themselves; I've also posted the full text of PPS/23
at http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan.html.
I'm primarily arguing against Chomsky's contention that US foreign
policy during the Cold War was aimed at exploiting the Third World.
Kennan *does* say that Japan and the Philippines are vital to US security,
so in that sense he's not advocating a completely hands-off policy; but
my main point is that he's saying the US ought *not* to get involved on
the Asian mainland, and that it ought to terminate its involvement in
China. This isn't at all consistent with the idea that US policy
centered around controlling and exploiting the Third World.
> In reality, the key value of the quote
> from Kennan, which you ignore, is the fact admitted by him that the
> U.S. must actively *maintain* the pattern of relationships leading to
> a "disparity" in the distribution of the world's wealth and resources.
Er, he's not saying that this pattern of relationships *leads to* the
disparity between the US and the Asian countries! He's saying that
*there is* a great disparity, that there's not much the US can do to
help the Asian countries to close the gap, that it's likely they'll
fall under Soviet influence, and that the US needs to make sure that
the resulting envy and resentment won't be detrimental to its security.
> Your argument is merely polemical and misleading, failing to address
> the key point of the quote. Kennan, who is a "liberal", does not
> simply say the U.S. should adopt a "hands-off" approach as you falsely
> assume. On the contrary, he argues that the U.S. should ignore only
> those regions which are not "vital" to U.S. "security", but be
> actively *military* and *economically* involved in areas which *are*
> "vital".
But Kennan's also saying that the *only* areas which are vital to US
security are Japan and the Philippines, and that otherwise, the US
should leave Asia alone (particularly China), contrary to Chomsky's
argument that the real aim of US foreign policy during the Cold War
was to exploit the Third World. Not sure why you're putting "security"
in quotes. Again, as Kennan said in his memoirs:
We Americans could feel fairly secure in the presence of a truly
friendly Japan and a nominally hostile China -- nothing very bad
could happen to us from this combination; but the dangers to our
security of a nominally friendly China and a truly hostile Japan
had already been demonstrated in the Pacific war. Worse still
would be a hostile China *and* a hostile Japan. Yet the triumph
of communism in most of China would be bound to enhance Communist
pressures in Japan; and should these pressures [in Japan] triumph,
as Moscow obviously hoped they would, then the Japan we would have
before us would obviously be a hostile one.
> Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3%
> of its population. This disparity is particularly great as
> between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we
> cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real
> task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships
> which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
> without positive detriment to our national security.
>
> How can one interpret this in a benign manner?
Er, by looking at what Kennan was actually recommending, namely that
the US ought to rebuild Japan, keep the Philippines in the US sphere
of influence, and otherwise not get involved in Asia?
> Kennan is saying that
> the U.S. has 50 per cent of the world's wealth, and we ought to
> establish and maintain a pattern of relationships in order to
> "maintain this position of disparity".
"... without positive detriment to our national security." Correct.
> The value of this quote is
> related to the admission that U.S. policy is directed at *maintaining*
> the disparity in the distribution of global resources.
I hate to say it, and I hope you won't find this insulting, but this
seems almost Freudian. Chomsky uses Kennan's words the same way a
psychoanalyst would use a Freudian slip: "Aha, the primary goal of
U.S. policy wasn't containing the Soviet Union, it was exploitation
of the Third World!" But this simply wasn't the case, as you can see
from reading the rest of the section, which has nothing to do with
controlling and exploiting the Third World. In the view of Kennan and
his colleagues, the primary goal of US foreign policy was to rebuild
Western Europe and Japan so as to restore the balance of power in
Europe and Asia and to contain the Soviet Union.
For evidence, see:
"The Long Telegram", February 22, 1946.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm
PPS/13, "Resume of World Situation", November 6, 1947.
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan/pps13.html
A couple quotes from PPS/13:
All in all, our policy must be directed toward restoring a balance
of power in Europe and Asia. This means that in the C.F.M. meeting
we must insist on keeping Western Germany free of communistic control.
We must then see that it is better integrated into western Europe and
that a part of our responsibility for conditions there is shifted to
the western European allies and the German people themselves.
And:
In these circumstances it is clearly unwise for us to continue the
attempt to carry alone, or largely singlehanded, the opposition to
Soviet expansion. It is urgently necessary for us to restore something
of the balance of power in Europe and Asia by strengthening local
forces of independence and by getting them to assume part of our
burden.
Kennan described the basic problem of American national security in 1951:
Today, standing at the end rather than the beginning of this
half-century, some of us see certain fundamental elements on which
we suspect that American security has rested. ... it was essential
to us, as it was to Britain, that no single Continental land power
should come to dominate the entire Eurasian land mass. Our
interest has lain rather in the maintenance of some sort of
stable balance among the powers of the interior, in order that
none of them should effect the subjugation of the others, conquer
the seafaring fringes of the land mass, become a great sea power
as well as land power, shatter the position of England, and enter --
as in these circumstances it certainly would -- on an overseas
expansion hostile to ourselves and supported by the immense
resources of the interior of Europe and Asia.
["American Diplomacy 1900-1950"]
Thus American foreign policy since World War II has been aimed at
maintaining the independence of Britain, Western Europe, and Japan
against anyone who might be capable of dominating Europe and Asia.
Hence the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Western Europe and
Japan, the NATO and US-Japan alliances, and so on.
> To do so, we
> will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming;
> and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
> immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that
> we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
>
> Kennan is saying that whatever policy the U.S. adopts, "altruism and
> world-benefaction" - i.e. humanitarianism - is not a factor. Whether
> or not he is advocating a hands-off or hands-on approach is not the
> key point here. The point is that humanitarianism is not an integral,
> or even peripheral, objective.
Correct. Kennan consistently argues that the US ought to pursue a
policy of enlightened self-interest (as Justin put it, "looking after
your own interest while not stepping on too many toes"), and that
it ought to refrain from supposedly benevolent involvement in other
parts of the world; it's not a world government. For example, he
discusses the limitations of supposedly altruistic action:
... most foreign peoples do not believe that governments do things
for selfless and altruistic motives; and if we do not reveal to
them a good solid motive of self-interest for anything we do with
regard to them, they are apt to invent one. This can be a more
sinister one than we ever dreamed of, and their belief in it can
cause serious confusion in our mutual relations.
Foreign aid has a place in our foreign policy; but the favorable
possibilities for it are more slender than people generally
suppose. The less it consists of outright grants, the better. The
less we try to clothe it in the trappings of disinterested
altruism--to view it as Christian charity--the more we can show
it as a rational extrapolation of our own national interest, the
better understood and the more effective it is going to be abroad.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/gkchri.htm]
> In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense
> now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our
> thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the
> aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a
> high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting
> ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and
> refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should
> cease to talk about vague and--for the Far East--unreal objectives
> such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and
> democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have
> to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered
> by idealistic slogans, the better.
>
> Again, the key point here is *not* that Kennan is advocating a
> hands-off approach, but rather that he is advocating that the U.S.
> should officially reject a foreign policy formulated on the basis of
> concerns for regional "human rights, the raising of the living
> standards, and democratization".
Correct. He thought that the main problem in the Asian countries was
the relationship between population growth and food supply, to which
Western concepts of human rights and democracy were irrelevant.
> Instead, "straight power concepts" are the order of the day.
Correct. In particular, the balance of power.
> The U.S. should not be bothered about regional domestic problems, and
> should not attempt to alleviate them.
Not correct. Kennan is saying that the US *cannot* alleviate them,
so it's probable that these countries will fall under Soviet influence.
> But does this mean that the U.S. should stay out of Far East affairs?
> No, not at all:
>
> We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in
> the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic.
> We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific
> and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we
> should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas
> remain in hands which we can control or rely on.
>
> And this is the key point. It is true that Kennan is advocating
> *against* full-scale military intervention in the Far East.
Correct.
> But this
> last part clarifies that he is certainly *not* advocating therefore a
> "hands-off" approach of not getting involved in the Asian people's own
> domestic affairs, as you claim.
Not completely, since Japan and the Philippines were vital to US security.
But with respect to the Asian mainland, yes.
> On the contrary, he very specifically advocates that the U.S. should
> study carefully "what parts" of Asia are "absolutely vital" to U.S.
> interests (other U.S. documents illustrate that the term "security"
> equates to "interests").
As I said earlier: Japan
had colonized Korea and Taiwan, invaded Manchuria and China,
occupied Indochina, attacked the US, and invaded Indonesia,
Malaya, Singapore, Burma, and the Philippines, and had only been
defeated by the US after a long and bitter war.
I think it's fair to say that Kennan really *was* talking about US
*security*.
> Kennan then advocates that the U.S. should
> implement a policy of indirect control - not direct military
> interventionism, but indirect control and manipulation:
Not sure what you mean by *indirect control* rather than direct control.
At the time, the US military was occupying Japan and rewriting its laws.
> The essentially counter-democratic thrust of U.S.
> policy in the "Far East" is thus about maintaing U.S. control over
> those regions of U.S. strategic/economic interest
Economic interest? Kennan says explicitly that the US should only
be involved in areas vital to its *security*, namely Japan and the
Philippines.
> through
> military/economic influence, in order to "maintain disparity" through
> proxy client regimes, regardless of domestic conditions for the
> people.
On the contrary, a key part of US policy towards Japan was to rebuild
Japan and improve domestic conditions for the people.
> Your attempt to absolve Kennan of this fundamental thrust is
> disingenuous and fails very simply to account for the key elements of
> Kennan's statements.
Again, I hope you won't find this insulting, but your isolation of
what you call "key elements" seems almost Freudian to me. Do you mind
if I ask if you've read anything by or about Kennan, other than Chomsky?
(If you haven't, for a detailed discussion of Kennan's actual influence
on US foreign policy during the Truman Administration, see Wilson
Miscamble, "George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign
Policy, 1947-1950.")
Thanks again for your response! I hope alt.music.pearl-jam readers
don't mind our off-topic discussion of diplomatic history.
> Full article at: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
Russil Wvong
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote:
>> No one expects you to be perfect, as there is no such thing as a
>> perfect country. My point is that your system is not working, so it's
>> not just dense but destructive to push it on other countries.
>>
>> 2010 watch it go to fire.
>
>Good god this is getting ridiculous. 2010 watch it go to fire... Gimme a
>break already.
It's a line from a song.
A Pearl Jam song in fact.
Y'know? Remember that band?
>Justin, you're an intelligent guy. If we're so evil, please stop supporting
>the U.S.' other form of global domination: Cultural Imperialism. This
>contributes just as much shit as our political system does to the world, so
>please let us know how things are going for you when you quit using Windows,
>watching any Hollywood originated flicks, and... listening to Pearl Jam.
I'm not suggesting locking up your culture, I'm talking about your
proactive military action and political manipulation.
>We're so evil. So quit contributing to the evil Cultural Imperialists.
You're being an idiot.
>Also, take your own advice for once. Mind your own business and do something
>about the shit going on in your own country. Oz ain't perfect, right? And if
>it is, then quit your finger pointing and come to the U.S. and help us do
>something about it. Otherwise, whatever.
Fuck off mind my own business, this is a newsgroup, we're here to
discuss things, and I'm going to give my opinion on whatever I want
to, just as I do in my imperfect homeland.
>Rob, who actually has to work for a living and can't spend all day pointing
>out other people's faults, so I'll check in later when I get a break from
>actually doing something with my day.
Well aren't you special.
Justin.
Rob DeFrancesco
> Rob DeFrancesco <r_de...@hotmail.com> blessed us with their presence,
> adding:
>> "SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote:
>>> No one expects you to be perfect, as there is no such thing as a
>>> perfect country. My point is that your system is not working, so it's
>>> not just dense but destructive to push it on other countries.
>>>
>>> 2010 watch it go to fire.
>> Good god this is getting ridiculous. 2010 watch it go to fire... Gimme a
>> break already.
>
> It's a line from a song.
> A Pearl Jam song in fact.
> Y'know? Remember that band?
Um, yeah. No shit, asshole.
>
>> Justin, you're an intelligent guy. If we're so evil, please stop supporting
>> the U.S.' other form of global domination: Cultural Imperialism. This
>> contributes just as much shit as our political system does to the world, so
>> please let us know how things are going for you when you quit using Windows,
>> watching any Hollywood originated flicks, and... listening to Pearl Jam.
>
> I'm not suggesting locking up your culture, I'm talking about your
> proactive military action and political manipulation.
>
I'm saying that our cultural domination is just as damning as our military
and political, so why ignore one when you talk so much shit about the
others?
>> We're so evil. So quit contributing to the evil Cultural Imperialists.
>
> You're being an idiot.
Nice.
>
>> Also, take your own advice for once. Mind your own business and do something
>> about the shit going on in your own country. Oz ain't perfect, right? And if
>> it is, then quit your finger pointing and come to the U.S. and help us do
>> something about it. Otherwise, whatever.
>
> Fuck off mind my own business, this is a newsgroup, we're here to
> discuss things, and I'm going to give my opinion on whatever I want
> to, just as I do in my imperfect homeland.
Mind my own business? So I can't give my own opinion? I can't tell you what
to do like you're telling us what to do? Wow. Why not address my concerns?
Or is this just your newsgroup?
>
>> Rob, who actually has to work for a living and can't spend all day pointing
>> out other people's faults, so I'll check in later when I get a break from
>> actually doing something with my day.
>
> Well aren't you special.
Yes.
> Justin.
Rob.
Eddie Hill
> in...@globalresearch.org (Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) wrote:
>
> Thanks again for your response! I hope alt.music.pearl-jam readers
> don't mind our off-topic discussion of diplomatic history.
>
i'm loving it.
of course this is all old stuff. the cold war strategy cannot apply to what
we do now. there's no world power to be our foil. balance of power will
not keep the peace anymore. the only option available to us is a "pax
americana" system modeled off what rome did in the mediterranean a few
thousand years ago. under that system we put down any local disturbances if
we fear they'll grow into something that can threaten world peace. we keep
a system of allies to help us maintain the peace, but none of these allies
are allowed to grow to a power to rival us. and we promote democracy and
liberal ideas through the world as we can, w/o compromising our own
security. so calling for china to hold elections or we invade them would be
right out the window.
eddie
> > Full article at: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html
>
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
supporting
> >the U.S.' other form of global domination: Cultural Imperialism. This
> >contributes just as much shit as our political system does to the world,
so
> >please let us know how things are going for you when you quit using
Windows,
> >watching any Hollywood originated flicks, and... listening to Pearl Jam.
>
> I'm not suggesting locking up your culture, I'm talking about your
> proactive military action and political manipulation.
>
you'd rather we be reactive? reactive powers cause even more damage.
eddie
> Justin.
JettKarma
>
>"JettKarma" <myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:i99piu0japf2a30bl...@4ax.com...
>> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> did proclaim:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >isolationism does not work either. we've had this argument through and
>> >through. when we ignore other countries problems, either they balloon
>and
>> >bite us in the arse, or the other countries complain that we're callously
>> >ignoring the situation.
>> >**********************************************************************
>> Most countries don't complain that we callously ignore them.
>
>there was all sorts of belly aching about how we ignore the situation in
>rwanda.
>***********************************************************************************
Yes, but ignoring the situation in Rwanda didn't trigger Rwandans to
blow up our Twin Towers. Surely, somewhere in a world this size and
this weird, non-intervention has led to a terrorist attack. However,
that must be a relatively rare occurrence when compared to terrorist
attacks prompted by unwanted intervention in an area.
>> They
>> generally complain that we've got our long nose stuck up where it
>> don't belong. Not that they wouldn't complain that we're callously
>> ignoring the situation...and that they don't...but, the people who
>> have us worried right now are not people who fear we've ignored them,
>> you have to admit. They're the ones who think we're too involved in
>> their region.
>>
>
>righto. and problem is that we support the dictators in that region instead
>of the people.
>
>> >> Honestly, if you guys don't want to experience *real* terrorism,
>> >
>> >? sept 11th was fake terrorism?
>> >*********************************************************************
>> You know what he means. As horrid as Sept. 11th was, it's not much
>> compared to the ongoing terrorism in other countries where 10s of
>> thousands or 100s of thousands of people have been killed through
>> terrorist acts--both small scale and governmental.
>>
>
>like where? isreal? n ireland? that's about all i can think of.
>**********************************************************************************
Like many, many places. Like Argentina. Like Nicaragua. Like East
Timor. Etc.
>> >eh. bullshit. some crazies blowing up a bunch of crap honestly doesn't
>bug
>> >me a lot. our foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by fear of
>retaliation
>> >from right wing fanatics. screw 'em, and the camel they rode in on.
>> >************************************************************************
>> Wow. That sounds enlightened. It kind of sounds like the attitude
>> that might have at least helped a bit to get us into the mess we found
>> ourselves in.
>>
>
>no. it sounds like an attitude that isn't changed by some what some right
>wing crazies do.
>**************************************************************************
But, it is changed...and hardened. Christ. Look as us right now.
We're afraid of what some right wing crazies will do, so we're not
saying "screw them"...instead, we're kind of saying, let's screw
ourselves, too.
>and you have to admit, the vast majority of the terrorists that'd like to
>blow up things here in the ol' US are, in fact, camel jockeys.
>***************************************************************************
I don't know if that's accurate or not, to be honest. But, I do know
that there are all kinds and sorts of terrorist groups located across
the whole globe and that many of these groups have an anti-US agenda.
It's not like Middle Easterners are or could be the only effective
terrorists to strike the US. In fact, I hope our heightened focus on
Middle Eastern terrorists doesn't leave us open for a 9/11 type of
blindsiding by a Rwandan terrorist group or a Chinese terrorist group,
etc.
>you can complain about my phrasing, if you like.
>
>> Besides which, our foreign policy right now very much is being
>> dictated by fear of retaliation from fanatics, in case you haven't
>> noticed. I agree that it *shouldn't* be dictated and hysterically
>> driven by this fear, but it is.
>>
>
>it shouldn't though.
>*********************************************************************
Shouldn't. It'd be nice if it weren't, but it is and will likely
continue to be.
>> >eddie f hill
>> >
--Jett
Eddie Hill
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> did proclaim:
>
> >
> >"JettKarma" <myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:i99piu0japf2a30bl...@4ax.com...
> >
> >there was all sorts of belly aching about how we ignore the situation in
> >rwanda.
>
>***************************************************************************
********
> Yes, but ignoring the situation in Rwanda didn't trigger Rwandans to
> blow up our Twin Towers. Surely, somewhere in a world this size and
> this weird, non-intervention has led to a terrorist attack. However,
> that must be a relatively rare occurrence when compared to terrorist
> attacks prompted by unwanted intervention in an area.
>
Japan bombed us. We weren't intervening... does that count?
Either way, it's our responsibility as people to help out our fellow humans.
That's the crux of what I'm saying.
> >> >*********************************************************************
> >> You know what he means. As horrid as Sept. 11th was, it's not much
> >> compared to the ongoing terrorism in other countries where 10s of
> >> thousands or 100s of thousands of people have been killed through
> >> terrorist acts--both small scale and governmental.
> >>
> >
> >like where? isreal? n ireland? that's about all i can think of.
>
>***************************************************************************
*******
> Like many, many places. Like Argentina. Like Nicaragua. Like East
> Timor. Etc.
>
I don't think any of those place have had as many people killed through
terrorism as we did in one day.
> >> Wow. That sounds enlightened. It kind of sounds like the attitude
> >> that might have at least helped a bit to get us into the mess we found
> >> ourselves in.
> >>
> >
> >no. it sounds like an attitude that isn't changed by some what some
right
> >wing crazies do.
>
>**************************************************************************
> But, it is changed...and hardened. Christ. Look as us right now.
> We're afraid of what some right wing crazies will do, so we're not
> saying "screw them"...instead, we're kind of saying, let's screw
> ourselves, too.
>
We have the same foreign policy as before. If their intent was to get us to
be more heavy handed in the mid east, then they succeeded. if it was to get
us out of the area, they failed miserably.
> >and you have to admit, the vast majority of the terrorists that'd like to
> >blow up things here in the ol' US are, in fact, camel jockeys.
>
>***************************************************************************
> I don't know if that's accurate or not, to be honest.
let's review cases of terrorism and attempted terrorism here.
OK City: white dude
WTC bombing back in the early '90s: arabs.
millennium bomb attack: arabs.
9/11: arabs
that dirty bomb plot, if it ever pans out to be true: guy working for some
arabs
attempted show bomb incident: guy that is half arab
i sure see a trend here... this doesn't mean most arabs are terrorists, but
it means most terrorists are arabs.
> But, I do know
> that there are all kinds and sorts of terrorist groups located across
> the whole globe and that many of these groups have an anti-US agenda.
> It's not like Middle Easterners are or could be the only effective
> terrorists to strike the US. In fact, I hope our heightened focus on
> Middle Eastern terrorists doesn't leave us open for a 9/11 type of
> blindsiding by a Rwandan terrorist group or a Chinese terrorist group,
> etc.
>
most terrorist groups world wide are also arabic, or at least muslim. the
problems in east timor are related to muslims. the terrorists bombinb the
indians are muslims. israel's being bombed by suicide muslims. the notable
exceptions are the IRA, the folks down in south america, and the basq region
of spain. there is also a history of muslim terrorists going after the
french for their role in angola. looks like a trend to me.
> >you can complain about my phrasing, if you like.
> >
> >> Besides which, our foreign policy right now very much is being
> >> dictated by fear of retaliation from fanatics, in case you haven't
> >> noticed. I agree that it *shouldn't* be dictated and hysterically
> >> driven by this fear, but it is.
> >>
> >
> >it shouldn't though.
> >*********************************************************************
> Shouldn't. It'd be nice if it weren't, but it is and will likely
> continue to be.
>
which isn't what this discussion is about.
why do you have such a hard time talking about the way things should be?
when your husband wants to watch a different TV channel do you say, "but
we're watching channel 5 now. how can we watch channel 2? that's just not
the way it is" i don't get it.
eddie f hill,
11 days
> >> >eddie f hill
> >> >
> --Jett
SiR.B
adding:
>"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote:
>
>> Rob DeFrancesco <r_de...@hotmail.com> blessed us with their presence,
>> adding:
>>> "SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote:
>>>> No one expects you to be perfect, as there is no such thing as a
>>>> perfect country. My point is that your system is not working, so it's
>>>> not just dense but destructive to push it on other countries.
>>>>
>>>> 2010 watch it go to fire.
>
>>> Good god this is getting ridiculous. 2010 watch it go to fire... Gimme a
>>> break already.
>>
>> It's a line from a song.
>> A Pearl Jam song in fact.
>> Y'know? Remember that band?
>
>Um, yeah. No shit, asshole.
nice.
>> I'm not suggesting locking up your culture, I'm talking about your
>> proactive military action and political manipulation.
>>
>I'm saying that our cultural domination is just as damning as our military
>and political, so why ignore one when you talk so much shit about the
>others?
Would you like me to talk shit about your cultural domination too?
>> You're being an idiot.
>
>Nice.
>
>>
>>> Also, take your own advice for once. Mind your own business and do something
>>> about the shit going on in your own country. Oz ain't perfect, right? And if
>>> it is, then quit your finger pointing and come to the U.S. and help us do
>>> something about it. Otherwise, whatever.
>>
>> Fuck off mind my own business, this is a newsgroup, we're here to
>> discuss things, and I'm going to give my opinion on whatever I want
>> to, just as I do in my imperfect homeland.
>
>Mind my own business? So I can't give my own opinion? I can't tell you what
>to do like you're telling us what to do? Wow. Why not address my concerns?
>Or is this just your newsgroup?
Talk about completely going whoosh, I was saying "Fuck off" to minding
*my* own business. Otherwise I would have said "Fuck off, mind *YOUR*
own business" no?
Justin.
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I hope alt.music.pearl-jam readers
> > don't mind our off-topic discussion of diplomatic history.
>
> i'm loving it.
Great!
> of course this is all old stuff. the cold war strategy cannot apply to what
> we do now. there's no world power to be our foil. balance of power will
> not keep the peace anymore. the only option available to us is a "pax
> americana" system modeled off what rome did in the mediterranean a few
> thousand years ago. under that system we put down any local disturbances if
> we fear they'll grow into something that can threaten world peace. we keep
> a system of allies to help us maintain the peace, but none of these allies
> are allowed to grow to a power to rival us. and we promote democracy and
> liberal ideas through the world as we can, w/o compromising our own
> security. so calling for china to hold elections or we invade them would be
> right out the window.
Um. That's one option for post-Cold War US strategy -- it sounds similar
to the neoconservative "benevolent hegemony" idea -- but there's at least
two other options.
1. Neoconservative (Bush): the US ought to maintain its "benevolent
hegemony." Rejects multilateralism.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy"
http://www.ceip.org/people/kagfaff.htm
The ubiquitous post-Cold War question -- where is the threat? --
is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American
security depend on American power and the will to use it, the
main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its
own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense
against a breakdown of peace and international order. The
appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to
preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible.
To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite
foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence.
2. Liberal (Clinton): the US ought to use its dominance to work for the
extension of democracy and human rights throughout the world, and the
strengthening of international law and multilateralism.
Joseph Nye, "The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians"
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/nye_USpower_economist_032302.htm
Granted, there are few pure multilateralists in practice, and
multilateralism can be used by smaller states to tie the United
States down like Gulliver among the Lilliputians, but this does
not mean that a multilateral approach is not generally in America's
interests. By embedding its policies in a multilateral framework,
the United States can make its disproportionate power more
legitimate and acceptable to others. No large power can afford to
be purely multilateralist, but that should be the starting point
for policy. And when that great power defines its national
interests broadly to include global interests, some degree of
unilateralism is more likely to be acceptable. Such an approach
will be crucial to the longevity of American power.
3. Realist (Kennan): the Cold War was an abnormal situation. Now that
the Soviet threat no longer exists, the US ought to follow a much more
modest and restrained foreign policy; to be one of several great powers
in a multipolar world, not a superpower.
Owen Harries, "Understanding America"
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/CISlectures/2002/Harries030402.htm
Let me draw this talk to a close on a personal note. During the
1990s I spent a lot of time arguing with a lot of conservative
American friends that the United States should use its position
of dominance, its vast power, with restraint, discrimination and
prudence. I argued that anything resembling a "democratic crusade"
or the imposition of a "New World Order" was a bad idea—-first
because democracy is not an export commodity but a do-it-yourself
enterprise that requires very special conditions; and secondly
because an assertive, interventionist policy was bound to generate
widespread hostility, suspicion, and if historical precedence
meant anything, concerted opposition to the United States.
Personally, I think the realists are right.
I've attempted to describe some of the basics of international politics
in the alt.politics.international FAQ:
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
David Manning
>
> > The U.S. should not be bothered about regional domestic problems, and
> > should not attempt to alleviate them.
>
> Not correct. Kennan is saying that the US *cannot* alleviate them,
> so it's probable that these countries will fall under Soviet influence.
It amounts to the same thing. When Kennan refers to "colonial backward
... peoples" and "western colonial administration" in his long
telegram about how his empire should deal with the Soviet empire, the
assumptions throughout are those of any rational imperialist --
Soviet, American, or otherwise. When he says that we should be honest
with the colonized about our unaltruistic motives or that some areas
are more vital to control and colonize than others, he is simply
suggesting tactical advice on how to run the empire. Kennan assumes
it's perfectly okay for empires to run as much of the world as they
can -- so long as they use restraint and pragmatism. A dovish Soviet
planner (or some of the Nazi generals of late World War II) would have
agreed. You can only think well of Kennan (or his counterparts in
other empires) if you share their assumption that imperialism and
colonialism are legitimate.
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> > Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote:
> > > The U.S. should not be bothered about regional domestic problems, and
> > > should not attempt to alleviate them.
> >
> > Not correct. Kennan is saying that the US *cannot* alleviate them,
> > so it's probable that these countries will fall under Soviet influence.
>
> It amounts to the same thing.
Why? Doesn't *ultra vires nemo obligatur* (beyond his ability nobody
is obligated) apply? In particular, the debate at that time centered
on US policy toward China. Surely you don't think that the US could
have propped up Chiang Kai-Shek and somehow created a liberal democracy
in China. (The Joint Chiefs of Staff were arguing at the time that
with enough aid, Chiang could defeat Mao.)
> When Kennan refers to "colonial backward
> ... peoples" and "western colonial administration" in his long
> telegram about how his empire should deal with the Soviet empire, the
> assumptions throughout are those of any rational imperialist --
> Soviet, American, or otherwise. When he says that we should be honest
> with the colonized about our unaltruistic motives or that some areas
> are more vital to control and colonize than others, he is simply
> suggesting tactical advice on how to run the empire. Kennan assumes
> it's perfectly okay for empires to run as much of the world as they
> can -- so long as they use restraint and pragmatism.
I hope you don't mind my saying so, David, but you're going one step
beyond Chomsky, who at least quoted things that Kennan actually wrote.
You're using a strawman argument: you're attacking things Kennan
didn't even say!
David Manning
>
> Why? Doesn't *ultra vires nemo obligatur* (beyond his ability nobody
> is obligated) apply? In particular, the debate at that time centered
> on US policy toward China. Surely you don't think that the US could
> have propped up Chiang Kai-Shek and somehow created a liberal democracy
> in China. (The Joint Chiefs of Staff were arguing at the time that
> with enough aid, Chiang could defeat Mao.)
>
Could the US have created a liberal democracy in China? It's a loaded
question, Russil, because it assumes that the US has the right to
install the government of its choice in China -- the Joint Chiefs
debate is over the tactical questions of whether and how to do it. If
you accept that the US has the right to impose governments on others,
then you can have a debate over whether or not the US has a vital
interest to do so or the resources to pull it off, etc. Presumably, if
imposing a government on others doesn't threaten the US interests or
security, if it's feasible, doesn't make the state look bad, is not
too costly, etc., then it's perfectly legitimate. Why not ask: could
the USSR have created a pro-Soviet Communist state in China? We could
get into a debate of feasability, cost, resources, interests, etc. --
but only if we accept that it's legitimate for the USSR to be imposing
governments on others.
This is the context of imperial planning. Similarly, when Kennan says
the US must devise a pattern of relationships to maintain disparity
between rich and poor "without positive detriment to our national
security" he makes no principled objection to state-maintained
inequality, he assumes it's legitimate so long as the US is not
harmed, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about
Kennan's commitment to democracy.
So, anyhow, I'll throw the question back at you: do powerful states
have the right to impose governments on others? If you accept that as
legitimate, then you accept imperialism and colonialism as legitimate.
And you're certainly at odds with democracy in any meaningful sense.
> > When Kennan refers to "colonial backward
> > ... peoples" and "western colonial administration" in his long
> > telegram about how his empire should deal with the Soviet empire, the
> > assumptions throughout are those of any rational imperialist --
> > Soviet, American, or otherwise. When he says that we should be honest
> > with the colonized about our unaltruistic motives or that some areas
> > are more vital to control and colonize than others, he is simply
> > suggesting tactical advice on how to run the empire. Kennan assumes
> > it's perfectly okay for empires to run as much of the world as they
> > can -- so long as they use restraint and pragmatism.
>
> I hope you don't mind my saying so, David, but you're going one step
> beyond Chomsky, who at least quoted things that Kennan actually wrote.
> You're using a strawman argument: you're attacking things Kennan
> didn't even say!
I'm attacking the assumptions implicit in Kennan and the other
planners' thinking. Kennan is opposed to imperialism and colonialism?
About "western colonial administration," Kennan warns that mistakes
made when administering the colonies will be used against the West. He
makes no principled objection to colonialism, he only cautiuons about
how the colonialism is carried out. But, you're the Kennan expert,
Russil: quote me Kennan's principled objection to imperialism and
colonialism. The only thing I've seen is advice on how to run an
empire, not even a principled objection to the existence of the Soviet
empire -- just the opposite, in fact: he thinks "peaceful and mutually
profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely
possible."
Russil Wvong
> > > russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote
> > > > Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote:
> > > > > The U.S. should not be bothered about regional domestic problems, and
> > > > > should not attempt to alleviate them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It amounts to the same thing.
> >
> > is obligated) apply? In particular, the debate at that time centered
> > on US policy toward China. Surely you don't think that the US could
> > have propped up Chiang Kai-Shek and somehow created a liberal democracy
> > in China. (The Joint Chiefs of Staff were arguing at the time that
> > with enough aid, Chiang could defeat Mao.)
>
> Could the US have created a liberal democracy in China? It's a loaded
> question, Russil, because it assumes that the US has the right to
> install the government of its choice in China -- the Joint Chiefs
> debate is over the tactical questions of whether and how to do it.
It seems to me that there's two different criticisms here, which contradict
each other:
(a) That the US didn't bother to alleviate problems in the region.
(b) That the US was assuming it had the right to intervene in the region.
You can't accuse the US of both at the same time. My point is that it
doesn't make sense to accuse Kennan of (a): he's saying that the US
*cannot* alleviate problems in the region.
Regarding (b):
> If you accept that the US has the right to impose governments on others,
> then you can have a debate over whether or not the US has a vital
> interest to do so or the resources to pull it off, etc.
Originally the charge was that Kennan was advocating the oppression of
the Third World; in fact, it turns out that in the text which Chomsky
was quoting, Kennan was arguing the US ought to leave the Asian mainland
alone. Now you're criticizing Kennan for arguing against US intervention
on the Asian mainland for *practical* reasons, rather than *principled*
reasons. I suppose that's fair enough, but it's quite a different
criticism.
Kennan discusses moral principles and international politics from a
Christian point of view in a May 1959 article in the Atlantic Monthly.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/gkchri.htm]
You're quite right in saying that he doesn't regard self-determination
as a fundamental principle, whereas I assume that you do.
The Tragedy of Colonialism
So much for the cold war. How about colonialism? Nobody seems to
suggest any more, I notice, that God might conceivably be on the
side of the metropolitan power, despite the fact that of the two
parties involved it is often the mother country that represents
the Christian society and the colonial people the pagan one. The
assumption usually encountered today is that any form of foreign
rule is necessarily oppressive and worse than any form of
indigenous rule. The next assumption is that any anti-colonial
effort is therefore automatically good in the Christian
sense--that self-determination, in short, is a Christian purpose.
I am confident that for such assumptions there is not a shred of
justification. The erection of the edifice of modern colonialism
was not a moral act or a series of moral acts but the response to
obvious historical conditions and necessities. It was a phenomenon
occasioned by the fact that industrialism burst forth in Europe
and North America more than a hundred years earlier than it did in
other parts of the globe and thus produced huge and sudden
disparities in physical and administrative power. This called for
a political response, and colonialism was this response. We
Americans were spared a greater participation in it only because
of our preoccupation with the development of our own
continent--for no other reason.
Today the colonial relationship has outworn in many
instances--though by no means all--its original technological and
psychological justification. A great part of the colonial system
has been liquidated, and another part of it is in course of
liquidation. This process could not fail to give rise to tensions
of tragic bitterness and difficulty. In the anatomy of these
tensions, one will look in vain, as a rule, for any Christian
meaning. The resistance to change on the part of the mother
country has sometimes reflected selfishness and shortsightedness,
and it has also reflected in many cases a genuine sense of
responsibility. Conversely, the demand for change on the part of
the colonial people has sometimes reflected a real love of
liberty, and it has often been borne by a spirit fiercely
chauvinistic, full of hatred, undemocratic, and irresponsible.
Let us, as Christians, view these resulting conflicts for what
they are: tragic situations, in which the elements of right and
wrong are indistinguishable to us. Let us remember that insofar as
these situations reflect racial differences, we ourselves stand
before God and the world as one of the most conspicuous examples
of the failure to find a satisfactory Christian solution to such
problems. Let us learn to view this whole subject of colonialism
with humility, with detachment, with compassion for both
sides. Let us not abuse the confidence of Christ by invoking his
judgment one way or another on situations that were obviously
beyond the power of mortal man to prevent and are now beyond the
power of mortal man to liquidate without pain and strife.
Let's put Kennan aside and move on to my personal status as an enemy
of democracy:
> So, anyhow, I'll throw the question back at you: do powerful states
> have the right to impose governments on others? If you accept that as
> legitimate, then you accept imperialism and colonialism as legitimate.
> And you're certainly at odds with democracy in any meaningful sense.
I'm afraid that IMHO, it depends on the situation: on the means required
and on the consequences. I realize this may not satisfy your sense of
moral absolutism, but so be it. The US imposed liberal democratic
governments on West Germany and Japan; I think this was a good thing,
considering the devastation that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had
wreaked in Europe and Asia. The US attempted to maintain a non-Communist
government in South Vietnam; I think this was a bad thing, considering
that the fall of the South Vietnamese government didn't have disastrous
consequences, and that the US used horrific and disproportionate means
to try to win the war.
There *is* a general principle here, the principle of *proportionality*:
the means used should be in proportion to the benefit to be gained.
(Equivalently, disproportionate means should *not* be used. This applies
whether we're talking about total warfare, nuclear weapons, torture and
summary execution, violence against women and children, or aerial bombing.)
No, I don't think democracy is the touchstone of good foreign policy
(democratic good, non-democratic bad). Democratic regimes can have
very aggressive foreign policies. Consider the US in Vietnam.
David Manning
Those are not the criticisms. The criticism is that the US assumes the
right to impose a government on others, denying them their democratic
rights. That the US was unwilling or unable to impose a government is
NOT the criticism. (Whether it's willing or able to is beside the
point, which is why I said unwillingness or inability amount to the
same thing.) Nor is it obvious that the US' imposing a government on
others would "alleviate problems in the region" -- so there's no
contradiction.
> Regarding (b):
>
> > If you accept that the US has the right to impose governments on others,
> > then you can have a debate over whether or not the US has a vital
> > interest to do so or the resources to pull it off, etc.
>
> Originally the charge was that Kennan was advocating the oppression of
> the Third World; in fact, it turns out that in the text which Chomsky
> was quoting, Kennan was arguing the US ought to leave the Asian mainland
> alone. Now you're criticizing Kennan for arguing against US intervention
> on the Asian mainland for *practical* reasons, rather than *principled*
> reasons. I suppose that's fair enough, but it's quite a different
> criticism.
Kennan assumes that the US has the right to control half the world's
wealth and maintain inequality, undemocratically denying others a say
in how the world's resources are used, among other things. He then
goes on to argue the tactical means by which to do it (leaving the
Asian mainland alone, in this instance). But the principles are what's
being criticized, not the tactics (which is why Chomsky needn't quote
them). The right to deny democracy to others is a working assumption
of US policy, as Kennan makes explicit in his comments -- if that
doesn't reflect an effort to oppress the Third World, I don't know
what does.
> Kennan discusses moral principles and international politics from a
> Christian point of view in a May 1959 article in the Atlantic Monthly.
> [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/gkchri.htm]
>
> You're quite right in saying that he doesn't regard self-determination
> as a fundamental principle, whereas I assume that you do.
>
> The Tragedy of Colonialism
> The erection of the edifice of modern colonialism
> was not a moral act or a series of moral acts but the response to
> obvious historical conditions and necessities. It was a phenomenon
> occasioned by the fact that industrialism burst forth in Europe
> and North America more than a hundred years earlier than it did in
> other parts of the globe and thus produced huge and sudden
> disparities in physical and administrative power. This called for
> a political response, and colonialism was this response.
[snip]
> Let us not abuse the confidence of Christ by invoking his
> judgment one way or another on situations that were obviously
> beyond the power of mortal man to prevent and are now beyond the
> power of mortal man to liquidate without pain and strife.
Wow. Secular Manifest Destiny. Colonialism was obviously beyond the
power of mortal man to prevent -- obviously! The imperial countries
just couldn't help themselves because the power granted them by
(historical conditions and industrialism) called for a "political
response" to those less powerful. Well, that's pretty much what you
would expect an apologist for colonialism to say. It's rather like
Nazism's historic inevitability of the Third Reich propaganda or
Marxism's inevitable decline of capitalism rhetoric or other
justifications for oppression. Kennan offers tactical advice on how to
deal with the decline of colonialism (urging Christian compassion for
both sides now that struggles for independence and other factors have
weakened the system) but the assumption is that if empires are
screwing over the natives, hey, it's an inevitable tragedy! Can't be
helped. That tells you a lot about Kennan's "moral" principles.
> Let's put Kennan aside and move on to my personal status as an enemy
> of democracy:
>
> > So, anyhow, I'll throw the question back at you: do powerful states
> > have the right to impose governments on others? If you accept that as
> > legitimate, then you accept imperialism and colonialism as legitimate.
> > And you're certainly at odds with democracy in any meaningful sense.
>
> I'm afraid that IMHO, it depends on the situation: on the means required
> and on the consequences. I realize this may not satisfy your sense of
> moral absolutism, but so be it. The US imposed liberal democratic
> governments on West Germany and Japan; I think this was a good thing,
> considering the devastation that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had
> wreaked in Europe and Asia. The US attempted to maintain a non-Communist
> government in South Vietnam; I think this was a bad thing, considering
> that the fall of the South Vietnamese government didn't have disastrous
> consequences, and that the US used horrific and disproportionate means
> to try to win the war.
So you agree that powerful states have the right to impose governments
on others if the costs are not great and the means proportionate? On
that assumption, one could justify the various pre-Poland Nazi
invasions in Europe or the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan or America's
overthrow of democratic Guatemala ... the list is endless. If the US
decides Canada is a vital interest, invades and and imposes a
government it prefers, by proportional means and at little cost to
itself, you'll think it's all right to have Canada's
democratically-elected government overthrown? You don't believe
Canadians have the right of self-determination if a more powerful
state says so and can deny them their rights at little cost to itself
and with the appropriate means? That's the anti-democratic implication
of your view.
> There *is* a general principle here, the principle of *proportionality*:
> the means used should be in proportion to the benefit to be gained.
> (Equivalently, disproportionate means should *not* be used. This applies
> whether we're talking about total warfare, nuclear weapons, torture and
> summary execution, violence against women and children, or aerial bombing.)
Proportionality of means isn't a principle, Russil, it's a tactical
question. If you assume that low intensity warfare, torture, nuclear
weapons, etc., can be used on principle, then you can make a tactical
judgment about proportional use. If you decide that others should not
have the right of self-determination, then you can debate the
proportion of the means by which to deny them their rights. Should we
use proportionate or disproportionate means to deny people their
rights? That's a loaded question: it assumes we can deny others' their
rights. By focusing on narrow tactical questions, you evade the larger
issues.
> No, I don't think democracy is the touchstone of good foreign policy
> (democratic good, non-democratic bad). Democratic regimes can have
> very aggressive foreign policies. Consider the US in Vietnam.
>
US policy in Vietnam was not decided by democratic process. Just the
opposite. The public voted for "peace candidate" Lyndon Johnson who,
even as he campaigned for president, was planning the massive
escalation of US forces. If there had been any meaningful democracy in
America, the policy would probably never have been pursued. So your
example is pointless. Democracy probably would be the touchstone of
good foreign policy if it were ever achieved. But it's clear from your
remarks what you think about democracy and self-determination.
Eddie Hill
> > > don't mind our off-topic discussion of diplomatic history.
> >
> > i'm loving it.
>
>
> > of course this is all old stuff. the cold war strategy cannot apply to
what
> > we do now. there's no world power to be our foil. balance of power
will
> > not keep the peace anymore. the only option available to us is a "pax
> > americana" system modeled off what rome did in the mediterranean a few
> > thousand years ago. under that system we put down any local
disturbances if
> > we fear they'll grow into something that can threaten world peace. we
keep
> > a system of allies to help us maintain the peace, but none of these
allies
> > are allowed to grow to a power to rival us. and we promote democracy
and
> > liberal ideas through the world as we can, w/o compromising our own
> > security. so calling for china to hold elections or we invade them
would be
> > right out the window.
>
> because democracy is not an export commodity but a do-it-yourself
> enterprise that requires very special conditions; and secondly
> because an assertive, interventionist policy was bound to generate
> widespread hostility, suspicion, and if historical precedence
> meant anything, concerted opposition to the United States.
>
> Personally, I think the realists are right.
>
nope. i'm more w/ the liberal/Clinton view. get other nations to help us
out and try to spread democracy. like i said before, i'm mostly thinking
NATO members + australia and new zealand and japan and (eventually) russia.
i don't agree that democracy is a do it yourself thing. it certainly
wouldn't have succeeded in the states w/o the help of france.
eddie
> I've attempted to describe some of the basics of international politics
> in the alt.politics.international FAQ:
> http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
>
Eddie Hill
"David Manning" <quote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e57e1dc8.02071...@posting.google.com...news:<3D31A0CA...@yahoo.com>...
> > I'm afraid that IMHO, it depends on the situation: on the means
required
> > and on the consequences. I realize this may not satisfy your sense of
> > moral absolutism, but so be it. The US imposed liberal democratic
> > governments on West Germany and Japan; I think this was a good thing,
> > considering the devastation that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had
> > wreaked in Europe and Asia. The US attempted to maintain a
non-Communist
> > government in South Vietnam; I think this was a bad thing, considering
> > that the fall of the South Vietnamese government didn't have disastrous
> > consequences, and that the US used horrific and disproportionate means
> > to try to win the war.
>
> on others if the costs are not great and the means proportionate? On
> that assumption, one could justify the various pre-Poland Nazi
> invasions in Europe or the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan or America's
> overthrow of democratic Guatemala ... the list is endless.
the actions must be moral though. the US does not have the right to install
fascist governments, but it does have the right to install democracies.
> If the US
> decides Canada is a vital interest, invades and and imposes a
> government it prefers, by proportional means and at little cost to
> itself, you'll think it's all right to have Canada's
> democratically-elected government overthrown? You don't believe
> Canadians have the right of self-determination if a more powerful
> state says so and can deny them their rights at little cost to itself
> and with the appropriate means? That's the anti-democratic implication
> of your view.
>
there is never the right to overthrow democracies
eddie w hill
Russil Wvong
> Those are not the criticisms. The criticism is that the US assumes the
> right to impose a government on others, denying them their democratic
> rights.
Again: the US imposed liberal democratic governments on West Germany and
Japan. Are you seriously arguing that the principle of self-determination
is an absolute principle, and that therefore it was wrong to do so?
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I think the realists are right.
>
> nope. i'm more w/ the liberal/Clinton view. get other nations to help us
> out and try to spread democracy. like i said before, i'm mostly thinking
> NATO members + australia and new zealand and japan and (eventually) russia.
Fair enough; I hope you vote for Gore (and tell other people to vote) in 2004. :-)
(I think the mainstream view in Canada, and from what I can tell in Western
Europe as well, is the liberal, multilateralist view.)
> i don't agree that democracy is a do it yourself thing. it certainly
> wouldn't have succeeded in the states w/o the help of france.
Sure, but if France had tried to make the US a democracy, without people
in the US wanting democracy, it wouldn't have happened.
Eddie Hill
> Eddie Hill wrote:
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Personally, I think the realists are right.
> >
> > nope. i'm more w/ the liberal/Clinton view. get other nations to help
us
> > out and try to spread democracy. like i said before, i'm mostly
thinking
> > NATO members + australia and new zealand and japan and (eventually)
russia.
>
> Fair enough; I hope you vote for Gore (and tell other people to vote) in
2004. :-)
> (I think the mainstream view in Canada, and from what I can tell in
Western
> Europe as well, is the liberal, multilateralist view.)
>
i'm hoping to have a better choice then gore, but we'll see. he's got his
pluses. i sure won't be voting for W, and i won't be throwing my vote away
to send some 'message' to anyone.
good job all you nader voters! that message sure scared 'em!!! Ô
> > i don't agree that democracy is a do it yourself thing. it certainly
> > wouldn't have succeeded in the states w/o the help of france.
>
> Sure, but if France had tried to make the US a democracy, without people
> in the US wanting democracy, it wouldn't have happened.
>
right. although, i think in most places most people want democracy. who
likes being told what to do? marx explained all of this. he just got a few
points a little wrong.
eddie
JettKarma
>
********************************************************************
I sure DO hope the Dems field someone better than Gore. Some new
blood is needed. If they send out Gore...we'd better get ready for
the second reign of King George for sure. Gore's idea of "coming out
swinging" leaves a lot to be desired...he just let George run him over
and leave him for the vultures. Gore cannot roll over and play dead
again.
At the same time, whoever runs for the Dems should look very closely
at the chunk of disaffected Dems who voted for Bush, as well as the
disaffected who voted for Nader. If the Dems, no matter who they run,
can't reel some of these people back into the fold, King George will
reign unabated.
I predict, as I predicted before the latest election, that George will
be President. Money talks. Money bought George the presidency the
last time, and money will make sure he stays right where he is, since
George, better than anybody, knows how to court money, including the
religious money. The common people who might vote against George are
not nearly miserable enough to vote against him...and besides, St.
George will be looking extremely pretty right around election time
slaying various dragons at a highly convenient time.
I don't think myself so much a pessimist as a realist...so, we'd
better get ready to see George's mug around for a very long time to
come.
Now the election following....maybe there's a glimmer of hope for that
one.
--Jett
Eddie Hill
> >likes being told what to do? marx explained all of this. he just got a
few
> >points a little wrong.
> >
> >eddie
> >
> I sure DO hope the Dems field someone better than Gore. Some new
> blood is needed. If they send out Gore...we'd better get ready for
> the second reign of King George for sure. Gore's idea of "coming out
> swinging" leaves a lot to be desired...he just let George run him over
> and leave him for the vultures. Gore cannot roll over and play dead
> again.
>
don't know about that. andrew jackson and grover cleavland are both
democrats that won the popular vote but lost the electorial vote and came
back four years later to get the white house. gore got more votes then any
democrat in history. he does need to attack W and show him what's up
though. that's for sure. this business deal can and should be exploited.
if anything's going to show the differences in the two candidates this is
it.
> At the same time, whoever runs for the Dems should look very closely
> at the chunk of disaffected Dems who voted for Bush, as well as the
> disaffected who voted for Nader. If the Dems, no matter who they run,
> can't reel some of these people back into the fold, King George will
> reign unabated.
>
bush appealed to their pocketbooks. they sold out their values and voted
for the tax cut. i'm hoping they woke up and realize how bad that screwed
the country.
> I predict, as I predicted before the latest election, that George will
> be President. Money talks. Money bought George the presidency the
> last time, and money will make sure he stays right where he is, since
> George, better than anybody, knows how to court money, including the
> religious money. The common people who might vote against George are
> not nearly miserable enough to vote against him...and besides, St.
> George will be looking extremely pretty right around election time
> slaying various dragons at a highly convenient time.
>
that's the thing. he can always do some sort of war thing to get back in.
and i don't think he has any problem opening up a new theater a few months
before the election to secure it for him.
that's how little i think of the man. i do believe he'd kill thousands of
people to stay in power
eddie
David Manning
> David Manning wrote:
> > Those are not the criticisms. The criticism is that the US assumes the
> > right to impose a government on others, denying them their democratic
> > rights.
>
> Again: the US imposed liberal democratic governments on West Germany and
> Japan. Are you seriously arguing that the principle of self-determination
> is an absolute principle, and that therefore it was wrong to do so?
But this is another loaded question, Russil: it assumes that imposing
a liberal state on a society is somehow a form of self-determination.
You're also assuming that the US actually granted the Germans and
Japanese meaningful self-determination which simply isn't true. In
fact, the US reconstituted Japan's imperial system and granted power
to the supporters of Japanese fascism as part of a business-dominated,
centralized state system that American planners themselves called
"totalitarian." It was a similar story in Germany where legislation
was vetoed, unions were weakened, and Nazis and their supporters in
business (including war criminals) were put back into positions of
power to run the state and the economy. Was it wrong for the US to
re-instate fascists to run the two countries in ways that reflected
American interests? Certainly, given that the German and Japanese
people had little or no say in these decisions.
Here's some some relevant material for you:
Eddie Hill
> > David Manning wrote:
> > > Those are not the criticisms. The criticism is that the US assumes the
> > > right to impose a government on others, denying them their democratic
> > > rights.
> >
> > Again: the US imposed liberal democratic governments on West Germany
and
> > Japan. Are you seriously arguing that the principle of
self-determination
> > is an absolute principle, and that therefore it was wrong to do so?
>
>
> a liberal state on a society is somehow a form of self-determination.
>
it is! once a liberal, democratic state is established the population is
free to make their own laws and do whatever they want. the only catch is
power cannot be seized by a small group of people.
> You're also assuming that the US actually granted the Germans and
> Japanese meaningful self-determination which simply isn't true. In
> fact, the US reconstituted Japan's imperial system and granted power
> to the supporters of Japanese fascism as part of a business-dominated,
> centralized state system that American planners themselves called
> "totalitarian." It was a similar story in Germany where legislation
> was vetoed, unions were weakened, and Nazis and their supporters in
> business (including war criminals) were put back into positions of
> power to run the state and the economy. Was it wrong for the US to
> re-instate fascists to run the two countries in ways that reflected
> American interests? Certainly, given that the German and Japanese
> people had little or no say in these decisions.
>
and slowly, over time both nations were formed into the democracies they are
today. of course the change didn't happen overnight. it couldn't.
eddie
Russil Wvong
> > > Those are not the criticisms. The criticism is that the US assumes the
> > > right to impose a government on others, denying them their democratic
> > > rights.
> >
> > Again: the US imposed liberal democratic governments on West Germany and
> > Japan. Are you seriously arguing that the principle of self-determination
> > is an absolute principle, and that therefore it was wrong to do so?
>
> But this is another loaded question, Russil: it assumes that imposing
> a liberal state on a society is somehow a form of self-determination.
>
> You're also assuming that the US actually granted the Germans and
> Japanese meaningful self-determination which simply isn't true.
Neither of your inferences is correct. I'm assuming neither of these
things. The Allied occupation of West Germany and the US occupation
of Japan, and the subsequent reconstruction of the West German and
Japanese political systems, were obviously violations of German and
Japanese self-determination. (I'm arguing that self-determination is
*not* an absolute principle.)
My question, again, is: are you seriously arguing that the principle
of self-determination is an absolute principle, and that it would
have applied even in the West German and Japanese cases? If the
Germans and Japanese had decided to put into place militaristic,
revisionist, and aggressive governments after World War II, as the
Germans had done after World War I, that would have been their right
under the principle of self-determination?
As is his habit, Chomsky casts US policy towards West Germany and Japan
in the worst possible light, but even he doesn't say explicitly that
the US simply ought to have left the Germans and the Japanese alone.