Vodpod videos no longer available.
I grew up in a small town (Billings, a “city” by Montana standards), and live now in a town of 40,000. Fortunately, Bozeman is a college town, and is a little more cultured than most towns of comparable size (though the movies “Religulous” and “W” are not playing here – and will not). Nonetheless, our local paper is a right wing rag, and the letters to the editor are filled with right wing tripe, to wit:
We’re in Trouble if Obama is Elected
Do you people realize that we are going to be in trouble is Obama gets into office? He talks very big and they are all lies. He plans to take our guns away from every one of us.
Biden is just as bad as Obama – he listens but tells lies. … McCain believes what is right, and he and Sarah Palin both believe in the United States of America.
We need God in the Pledge of Allegiance which has been there many many years. … Think about our gas, as we have plugged wells in Montana that could be opened and drilled. … Either Obama’s wife or someone down the line on his side is an atheist.
Of course, I chose that letter because it is so dumb. But the smart letters are not much better. I’m not saying that Percy Ingersoll, who wrote the letter, is a dumb person. But he suffers from something very common in small towns: narrow outlook. He sees very little of the big world, his frame of reference is very small. Therefore, he has reduced the campaign for president to things that fit into his small town mind – guns and God.
Hatred is very common among us. It was hatred that fueled the invasion of Iraq. It’s hatred that fuels racism, homophobia and xenophobia. Hatred is as common as hydrogen, and we humans need to be very careful about stoking it. It needs to be quarantined, like harmful bacteria. When it escapes, we suffer.
Small town people, with small town minds, tend to be narrow in focus. Their hatred is not nearly as damaging as that which emanates from Washington, DC. There hateful people have access to sophisticated weapons and have armies at their disposal. Millions of people have died because of Washington’s big-town, highly developed hatred. Here in small towns, feelings get hurt, yard signs get removed, movies get censored. It’s fairly innocuous.
But we all hate just the same. What Al Jazeeera has done with the YouTube clip above is to focus on small town hatred. But it’s everywhere. John McCain and Sarah Palin are engaged in deliberate and mindful stoking of hatred. They are doing it to gain votes. Their behavior is contemptible.
Piece of Mindful 
>>>>It was hatred that fueled the invasion of Iraq.
Mostly Saddam’s hatred of things non-Saddam.
>>>>But he suffers from something very common in small towns: narrow outlook. He sees very little of the big world, his frame of reference is very small.
Groan. Who says he’s suffering? You assume that if he saw more of the world, he would think like you.
Where’s your evidence that a broader outlook leads to a higher quality of life? Are you saying that if the Hutterites got out more, they would be happier?
Big City dwellers are just as, or more, narrow minded. Percy Ingersoll would not get his letter printed in Seattle. The big city lets you confuse the tail of the bell curve with the middle.
>>>>Millions of people have died because of Washington’s big-town, highly developed hatred.
Another groaner. What millions? Are we ahead of your buddies Stalin and Mao?
Don’t give me any pukefest about Iraqi children or Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge.
“Washington” shows great restraint relative to its historic capability.
LikeLike
You want me to tell you what you want to hear and not what is true. Right?
OK – those Iraqi kids are still alive. They threw flowers at our feet. Feel better?
LikeLike
Typical.
LikeLike
Now, who is it that covers his eyes and ears and says “Nyah nyah nyah”?
LikeLike
My, a little testy, are we?
What we’ve run into here is the whole post-modern Leftist ‘joint and several liability’ criticism of all things American. Saddam and Pol Pot’s minions get a pass, and America gets all the blame.
LikeLike
What can I do about Pol Pot? I can only point out that his way was cleared for ascension to power by US destruction of that society. What can I do about Saddam? I can only point out that the US supported him right through his most heinous crimes, including gassing his own people.
I blame America when America is to blame. I run into people like you all the time – people who say that America is the exception to all rules, and is blameless for everything.
LikeLike
>>>>his way was cleared for ascension to power by US destruction of that society.
Do you blame the trigger, or the gun? If a society is self organized to such a critical point, you can’t hang it all on the US.
Assigning blame is a dicey task.
Here’s a hypothetical: America (including you) built a wealthy society that greatly increased the value of oil, hence enriching the Arab/Middle East world who used the wealth to build nuclear weapons with which they threatened/destroyed the world.
Who is to blame? Arabs? America? Mark T.? Each had their role, and it is not obvious what the best course of action was, but some like to think these things are obvious.
It seems we could advance the debate by assigning some percentage of fault to each party.
LikeLike
The US dropped more bombs on Cambodia than it dropped in all of WWII – hundreds of thousands were killed, the place was devastated. In that atmosphere, the shock doctrine applied, and the nastiest SOB on the block rose to power. Culpability – 95% US. There are always Pol Pots hanging around – someone has to open the door for them.
…who used the wealth to build nuclear weapons with which they threatened/destroyed the world.
No nuclear weapons were built, but the U.S. used that trumped up threat to arm Israel with nukes. Arab regimes then responded to the Israeli threat, which was a clear and present danger to them, with nuclear programs of their own. You’re missing cause and affect, and in effect blaming the victim.
The U.S. depends on other peoples for our resources – Latin America and the Middle East have long been under our thumb. They have wanted to break free, go their own way (in fact, Latin America is doing just that as we speaek). The U.S. has always had to trump up some threaet from them to justify sending in troops. Once upon a time it was communism, now it’s terrorism. Second verse, same as the first …
And you seem to overlook the U.S. role in building up Iraq, selling it its WMD’s, using it as our weapon against Iran. It’s not like we operate in w world free of blowback. We have blood on our hands – more than anyone else, including Saddam Hussein.
LikeLike
>>>>hundreds of thousands were killed
An inflated figure, but I see we’ve got the power of myth at work here.
The communists came to power in Cambodia, and they probably would have despite the US actions. So they let the Viet Cong use their country, thus inviting attacks, then let the intra group haters have free rein with their doctrine of a better life by making others worse, and there you go. I’d say America 5%. We’re really not that strong.
>>>>You’re missing cause and affect, and in effect blaming the victim.
Please. I was posing a hypothetical to point out the fractal nature of assigning blame. I can see it is hard for you to get outside the box.
I’ll tag along with your narrative here a little bit.
>>>>No nuclear weapons were built, but the U.S. used that trumped up threat to arm Israel with nukes.
Pakistan and Israel both had early programs. The US wasn’t helpful to Israel’s plans, who got lots of help from France/Britain/Germany. I imagine you’ll claim they got a green light from the US. Maybe.
>>>>Arab regimes then responded to the Israeli threat, which was a clear and present danger to them
I don’t see any evidence for this. Israel is too small while being historically and demographically weak.
The Arab regimes are culturally weak but demographically strong (they have high birth rates). Arab Wahhabism is far more dangerous than anything Israel puts out.
>>>>The U.S. depends on other peoples for our resources – Latin America and the Middle East have long been under our thumb.
A non-sequitur. We pay market rates for resources, just as do Japan and Europe. “Under our thumb” is a different matter, and I suspect our meddling there is less substantial than you imagine. We’re useful as someone to blame. The internal native/mestizo conflict is a far more substantive dynamic.
>>>>We have blood on our hands – more than anyone else,
In other words, WE’RE NUMBER 1! WE’RE NUMBER 1! WE’RE NUMBER 1!
LikeLike
I hate these long diatribes where you righties come in and parse everything and insert your own narrative, usually underinformed and unfounded, often just a repetition of myth. Your musings about Saddam are a perfect example – he was a U.S. tool, and later became an object of hatred in an intense propaganda campaign designed to help the U.S. public hate Iraqis, so that we could do some violence on them (if you want to beat a dog, first you have to give him a bad name.) You are as much a victim of propaganda as a passive carrier of mythology, and a Rush-like right winger in that you are armed with the latest in arrogant supposition about how history really played out. Rush empowered you, and you’ll never look back, nonetheless, here we go.
1) Estimates of deaths in Cambodia range from 100,000 (us) to 600,000 (them). The bombing campaign lasted 14 months (us) to six or seven years (them). The U.S. carpet-bombed them with B52’s (admitted), and the killing was indiscriminate (unavoidable). The society was torn apart (Americans are early on indoctrinated with the idea that bombing people is benign). Pol Pot came to power in the aftermath. Official U.S. propaganda (your narrative) is that he took power by force and came down from heaven (or up from hell) in a machine without any U.S. involvement. Therefore, we assign all evil that followed our destruction of that society to him. We wash our hands. That’s the job of historians like Rush – to help you feel good about your country.
2) Neither Iraq nor Iran have bombs nor are they even useful to them, as Israel is armed with as many as 200 of them, and would annihilate either of them should they use even one as a demonstration. Israel came about those weapons with help from the Brits and the French, and “theft” from the U.S., always suspicious. Iran and Iraq pose no “threat” to the west with whatever nuclear weapons they develop. They can’t use them. It’s just posturing. Far more dangerous are the chemical and biological stocks that the U.S. supplied them with over the years. They are a deterrent, which is why the U.S. wants them to disarm. If Iran were to disarm, we’d be free to attack them, and we would. They know that, you don’t.
3) Israeli is a real and present danger to Mideast peace, but she is usually constrained by world opinion and the threat of mass uprisings from attacking her neighbors. She is much more despised outside the U.S. than in. She is an armed state with a military that is perhaps the fourth strongest in the world, virtually all of those weapons supplied by the U.S. She is not weak or defenseless, as is seen in her attacks on neighbors such as Lebanon and barbaric suppression and dispossession of Palestinians and their land.
4) How many people have been killed by Arab terrorism? A few thousand? Just as a counterbalance, the U.S. killed perhaps a quarter million of them during Gulf War I, starved a half million kids in the 90’s, and estimates of civilian causalities in the current conflict range from “tens of thousands” (us) to 1.2 million by other researchers, with as many as four million displaced. Are you getting a notion of the scales here? But you’ve got the imperialist mindset that can block out the painfully obvious and focus instead on the relatively paltry crimes of the victims of our aggression. (BTW – add to the list of casualties those resulting from U.S. arming of both Iran and Iraq during the war of the 1980’s. We’ve got some blood on our hands from that one too – you figure the percentage, as you seem to be the accountant in this exchange.)
5) We do not pay “market rates” for resources. Good grief – your head is not even in the game. Imagine that we did not have a military presence all over the globe, that we didn’t attack countries that happen to have resources we want or impose fascist governments on them – imagine that when they break free we call them names and attack and embargo them – you have a right winger’s awareness of the state of the world, which is to say, head in a dark place but wearing a wide grin.
LikeLike
>>>>I hate…
That pretty well sums up your approach to political debate. The Dark Side is strong.
>>>>usually underinformed and unfounded
But not always, so maybe there is hope.
>>>>Saddam…was a U.S. tool
An absurd statement. If you think the evidence supports this, then you are out on the kook fringe.
>>>>You are as much a victim of propaganda…
Well, here we are at the usual asymmetry: you know THE TRUTH, you know HOW HISTORY REALLY PLAYED OUT, but I’m clueless. You are the political Priest, caretaker of the Good Books, robed and aloof, and I must sit in the pew with my head bowed and soak up the bits you deem suitable for my paltry existence.
>>>>…Cambodia…
I’m not here to whitewash what went on there. I’ll acknowledge what we did. I also think it is a problem if the best a society can do is raise up a leader like Pol Pot in a time of stress.
>>>>Neither Iraq nor Iran have bombs
Pakistan does. But my point here was that the wealth of the West makes these countries richer, and they have the money/leisure to pursue bombs. The question was: what is the proper response from a concerned citizen in the West if he feels his lifestyle contributes to this ultimately deadly arms race? Do we emigrate? Do we take a vow of poverty? Do we agitate for a foreign policy that can finesse the situation? Can such situations be finessed? I am curious about your thoughts here.
>>>>Israeli is a real and present danger to Mideast peace…barbaric suppression and dispossession of Palestinians and their land.
Oh my. If you believe this, you are too far gone.
>>>>How many people have been killed by Arab terrorism?
We worry about their POTENTIAL for killing, which in the nuclear age can get pretty high. The potential to disrupt the World economy is pretty high, but I suspect this doesn’t worry you too much. The other concern here is Islamic terror/civil wars/aggression world wide where the numbers are pretty high.
>>>>Just as a counterbalance…
I don’t agree with your numbers in particular, and you want to throw the numbers from Iraqi civil strife on our backs. Our troops have been historically scrupulous in targeting just the bad guys.
>>>>5)
The usual Chomskyite rant. I don’t know what you expect for a realistic alternative. The world trade regime we have in place works pretty well for the benefit of all.
LikeLike
There’s an interesting history there, and evidence that he was approached by the CIA in Egypt prior to coming to power. Of course, as the years went on and he grew stronger, he began to have delusions of grandeur. After we supported him through the Iran/Iraq War, facing down the Iranians, shooting down that civilian aircraft (a strong message we sent the Iranians there), Saddam grew arrogant. When he asked permission to invade Kuwait, we gave it to him, and then launched a barbaric attack on the whole country, followed by sanctions – he found that he wasn’t the fair-haired boy anymore. A trap had been sprung. What changed? (hint – begins with USSR and ends in “collapsed”). Now, I’ve told you enough to make you curious about how things really play out in the real world, so you should be curious, but I’d bet you’re not.
You are kind of clueless, but in that arrogant right wing kind of way. As I like to say, there are two kinds of right wingers – those who know everything, and those who know nothing, and it is very hard to tell them apart. You are of the former group, and unknowingly, the latter group.
Propaganda is a science and a loaded word. It’s a very easy thing to defeat – all you have to do is be aware of its existence, and poof! It loses its power. Everyone in every country grows up believing the mythology of that country, so we are all indoctrinated to a degree. But some countries deliberately immerse their people in it – the Russians, the Chinese, and the US are the major practitioners, the Chinese and the Americans being very, very good at it. The Russians were kind of clumsy. Once again, I’ve told you too much – you’re not ready for this.
You’re not getting this. We destroyed them – they had nothing. Pol Pot rose up out of the ashes. If not him – someone else. Destruction of a society has a way of bringing out the worst in a people – look at us, with that comparatively minor incident on 9/11, and what it did to us – prisons torture loss of freedom fear culture and orange alerts – imagine if something really bad happened to us.
Funny. You’ve got it exactly backwards. That is the mindset I’m talking about.
You’re missing it entirely – we visit violence on them, they respond. If we tone it down, they tone it down. Iraqis typically hate the US – not our people, but our government, because of all the horrible things we’ve done to them. In 1989 they were a reasonably prosperous society living well off their own resources, with advanced health care and education systems. The U.S. set out to destroy them – I’m not sure why, but I think it was because they broke the third world model – their role is to supply resources to first world countries. There aren’t enough resources in the world for everyone to live like we do. That’s my opinion, changeable, of course. There’s a reason why we attacked them in 1991, and it wasn’t because of Kuwait. That was a narrative for your benefit. But I’m not really clear why. Their oil is very important to us – that’s part of it, but not all of it.
American attitudes about Israel are off the chart jingoist – their crimes are right out in the open for all to see. The rest of the world sees them very well, but they are hidden in plain view from you.
Rich. Just rich. World wide, numbers are not very high. You’d be better off worrying about our POTENTIAL for killing. We’re very good at it. We’re the best. We’ve killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of. Our numbers don’t match Stalin’s yet, but we’re impressive and getting better all the time.
MarkT, your philosophy pretty well equals Chomsky’s. That gives us a one stop shopping experience.
>>>>When he asked permission to invade Kuwait, we gave it to him
This is the typical logic one has to deal with on your fringe. Any evidence that this is true is murky and scant, but it is enough to give your side traction to string out the usual American Imperialism narrative. It does not represent what reasonable people would draw from the evidence.
>>>>[Cambodia]We destroyed them – they had nothing.
Other countries have come back from worse. Why didn’t mid century Poland go genocidal? There is more at work here, including the admixture of communist ideology with a historic disdain of intellectuals.
>>>>In 1989 [Iraq was] a reasonably prosperous society living well off their own resources, with advanced health care and education systems. The U.S. set out to destroy them
Way too glib. That prosperity hid some problems a real leader would have addressed, but Saddam enhanced the endogenous tribal patterns that made the country too fractured for modern times when anyone can get an AK 47. Next chance you get, don’t vote for Baath socialism.
>>>>We started the conflict, and are 100% responsible for everything that followed.
No we are not. Take for example the FBI assault on the Koresh cult in Waco, Texas. The Feds were ham handed, but is it fair to pin everything on the Feds? Doesn’t living in a ramshackle fortress with flammables lying about leave you with something to answer for?
“Our troops have been historically scrupulous in targeting just the bad guys.”
>>>>That’s that propaganda system I was telling you about at work …
Name a country that has made more effort to only target combatants when the fight is on.
>>>>In order to be a true and loyal American…it is necessary to fundamentally misunderstand the way the world works
Let’s say I give up my koolaid and go over to the side of truth and justice. What is the plan of action? Do you want just a more enlightened foreign policy? Do you want to depopulate the country of those who don’t get it? Do you want reparations for all the past misdeeds? Do want us to vote for Obama? Do you want the country to disappear? Do you want control of the educational establishments so the Truth can be promulgated?
LikeLike
I have encountered many people who hate him and who have not read him. He’s a well-sourced critic of the U.S. and Israel (although himself Jewish), and the American people are not at all inclined to allow themselves to be criticized. Hence, he’s never allowed on TV – that alone is an interesting phenomenon, don’t you think?
Anyway, I’m pretty well read. He’s one of many.
It’s evidence. The Glaspie tape was never meant for public consumption in this country, and has never been played on the nightly news. She was not having coffee with him – she was relaying official US government positions, her job. And when Saddam suggested he might invade Kuwait to solve the problem of oil theft by the Kuwaities, she said that it was an Arab matter, that the US had no position.
Official papers on these matters are not released until all the culprits are dead, forty years from now if then. So we can only speculate. Like I said, it’s evidence, it fits well into a larger picture. Got to use one’s head.
Look at Vietnam – they still haven’t recovered from that war – we destroyed everything, killed 3-4 million of them. You don’t just bounce back and it does open the door for thugs. People, when they are afraid, will accept any fool who says he will protect them. Case in point – post 9/11 U.S. I don’t get the Polish analogy. You’re grasping at straws.
Saddam was a petty tyrant, effective enough. The U.S. learned a lot from him, but not soon enough. It’s only recently that the U.S. began paying the factions off not to fight – an old Saddam trick. Anyway, he was never the threat we made him out to be, and we’ve been worse for that country than Saddam by a factor of hundreds if not thousands. There have always been larger fish in the pan – oil reserves, proximity to Russia. The Iraqis are unfortunate in that they live in a strategically important region.
One thing that Saddam did very well was to play the USSR off the Americans very skillfully. It was only natural that once the Soviets receded, the US would attack.
That’s a non sequitur. I’m talking about international law. You invade a place, you have responsibility for everything that follows the invasion. The US doesn’t follow international law, of course, but the moral responsibility is there.
“The confusion between judgement of fact and judgement of value occurs at the level of these qualifications of fact and interpretation. For example: All bombings by the enemy are acts of savagery aimed only at civilian objectives, whereas all bombings by one’s own planes are proof of one’s superiority, and they never destroy anything but military objectives. Similarly, when another government shows good will, it is a sign of weakness; when it shows authority, it wants war or dictatorship.”
That’s from Jacques Ellul’s classic work from the 1960’s, Propaganda. All people believe they are morally superior to their enemies, that they are compassionate while the other is ruthless. I look at the actual evidence, and it ain’t pretty, and it doesn’t speak well of us.
Now we’re getting somewhere. I only want us to give up the imperialist mindset, to let others live as we live, to allow them the security of their borders and private markets, to settle differences through the UN without aggression and preventive war.
The Europeans, such as they are, pretty well gave up imperialism after the WWII experience (or at least put it all in our lap). They are now prosperous and far more egalitarian than us. You can live peacefully in this world. War is not the only way.
I want us to obey international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to become a force for good in the world, rather than an enforcer of private capitalist agendas.
Education? Id’ like it to start. Today.
LikeLike
>>>>Hence, he’s [Chomsky] never allowed on TV
Good Lord, man, check out Link TV: it’s a Zinn/Chomsky love fest. I suppose it doesn’t count because it’s a marginal satellite item. I watch when I can.
>>>>Like I said, it’s evidence, it fits well into a larger picture.
Seems like marginal evidence for a Bush/Cheney/DC establishment puppet master narrative. Saddam was too much his own man for the worse.
>>>>Look at Vietnam – they still haven’t recovered from that war…I don’t get the Polish analogy.
Poland was devastated by WWII worse than Vietnam/Cambodia in 1975, but they came back rapidly without a genocidal binge. There are other examples. A nation’s human capital is more important in these matters than the policy of a distant super power.
>>>>he [Saddam] was never the threat we made him out to be
Probably true, but he wasn’t exactly a good person to have on the world stage.
>>>>we’ve been worse for that country than Saddam by a factor of hundreds if not thousands.
The long term prospects haven’t played out. We could possibly be counted as a good if we eased them through a post Saddam civil war with less strife than otherwise. Plus we refurbished their power plants.
>>>>That’s a non sequitur. I’m talking about international law. You invade a place, you have responsibility for everything that follows the invasion.
Do we get to pocket all the GDP generated after the invasion?
You have a strict liability mindset, popular now among the American litigator/entitlement set. That is not always the best way to approach things.
>>>>I look at the actual evidence, and it ain’t pretty, and it doesn’t speak well of us.
Our troops aren’t all angels (nor should they be) but name a time/place/conflict/similar situation where an army has functioned under the scrutiny and rules of engagement we have. I can sure name a lot that have been worse.
>>>>The Europeans, such as they are, pretty well gave up imperialism after the WWII experience (or at least put it all in our lap)
The European type colonialism was expensive. We try to enforce a quasi free trade/democracy system that has let the Euro/Japan/other traders prosper beyond historical measures. On our dime. You call it “an enforcer of private capitalist agendas”, but a rising tide lifts all boats.
LikeLike
That’s entirely supposition on your part. He could as easily be a stooge who got uppity. He was ‘our boy’ until 1990. The US don’t go around shooting down jetliners for any old fool. But my own theory is that when the Soviet Union receded, he could no longer play one superpower against the other, and was toast.
.
I vaguely recall Poland being occupied at the end of WWII and becoming a Soviet satellite. Which are you saying – that Stalin was a civilizing influence, or that Europeans are culturally superior to Cambodians?
.
That’s humorous. I assume your making a joke.
.
It’s not me – it’s those damned international agreements we signed on to. You have the Bush mindset – that we only adhere to agreements as it suits our fancy.
.
So said the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French – did you ever stop to think that we’re not different?
.
You’re just wrong, but it fits with your overall world view. You see wealth leaving the country, when it is actually coming in. Countries have colonies because they need cheap labor and resources. The flow of wealth is to the mother country. The same is true of the U.S – we don’t enforce a strict colonial structure but our marines have been incredibly busy over the years, and many many bombs have been dropped, to enforce our world order.
That order is breaking down – look at all of the Latin American countries that have elected independent leaders, who have shaken off the World Bank and IMF, who are building and economic order around Venezuela, and the US seems powerless to do anything about it.
Times have indeed changed.
Those countries that attempted to go their own way – i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, paid (pay) a huge price. But the US no longer seems able to enforce the order.
It’s not about democracy, never has been. That is a fig leaf used to cover our own brand of colonialism. The US has no use, no regard for democracy.
LikeLike
>>>>Which are you saying – that Stalin was a civilizing influence, or that Europeans are culturally superior to Cambodians?
Poland recovered in spite of Stalin.
I wouldn’t say “culturally superior”, but societies handle stress differently. Poland had more stress than Cambodia, but didn’t devote their resources to killing each other. Lebanon was a cool country but with few institutions or leaders to avoid a civil war when nudged by the pressures in that area. Rwanda had a recent genocide without much help from the outside.
>>>>So said the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French – did you ever stop to think that we’re not different?
I think we are different in a qualitative and quantitative way. In the streets of Europe after WWII, the Americans were liked by the populace, while other troops were feared. Let us say you are a Nigerian wandering a war zone somewhere. Where would you head if you had a choice: an American checkpoint, or another country’s checkpoint?
>>>>Countries have colonies because they need cheap labor and resources. The flow of wealth is to the mother country.
No. The labor is not cheap, and the resources can be purchased for less than the price of colonialism. You are making the Hitler mistake: Hitler thought he needed to physically control resources for Germany’s growth. He thought Britain and France prospered because of their colonies. Big, fat, mistake. The opportunity cost of colonies is higher than the alternative of trading with them.
>>>>look at all of the Latin American countries that have elected independent leaders, who have shaken off the World Bank and IMF, who are building and economic order around Venezuela
Well, good luck to them. I’m all for improving the situation, but we haven’t seen it yet. Real wages in Venezuela have fallen for the bottom 50%. Chavez is living off high oil prices and not improving his oil infrastructure. I don’t see him as a long term success story. Bolivia is a self imposed basket case. The World Bank and IMF meant to mean well, I don’t see them as some enforcer of malicious colonial subservience.
>>>>Those countries that attempted to go their own way – i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, paid (pay) a huge price.
Those countries had/have problems beyond interference from outside. Communism coupled with a corrupt ruling class doesn’t serve anyone well. Lots of countries suck with no help from anyone, such as Burma, Albania, and Turkmenistan.
You put too much stock in the ability of the US to call events around the world. I think you hope your side will have all the power one day, and then you can build your World of Warcraft character that will kick a$$ in a good way.
LikeLike
That has almost an hypnotic quality about it – I get the impression about halfway through that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Your brush is so broad that all details have been submerged into an eggheaded narrative making no sense to anyone but you. Get real.
The Germans were also exemplary in their treatment of prisoners. You underestimate them. Anyway, that was then, before the U.S. took over on the world stage. We used to be better, have more visionary leaders than we do now. We soon enough adopted the imperialist mindset and began doing massacres of our own, killing millions for vague objectives. In answer to your question, in 2008, the answer is “another county’s checkpoint.”
Power does that to people. Look at the Israelis, once the oppressed, now the oppressor. Turns out they are very little different than their former tormenters.
Big fat mistake is yours. You presume to know that we are dealing with the colonies on equal footing when in fact we interfere in their internal governance, expropriate their best land, push them off to the side, marginalize their labor force, and extract their resources for ourselves for our own benefits. Those who interfere with this process are called “rogue”, usually murdered. You idealize the process of rape and plunder, which colonizers have always done.
You don’t know them well. WB and IMF demanded, in return for their loans to the upper crust (the compromised classes), that services to the lower classes be cut, that public resources be turned over to private owners (often American), that trade barriers be dropped. In other words, colonization. Chavez is indeed dependent on high oil prices – that’s a bet I’d make. Venezuela’s economy is the fastest growing in the hemisphere. They’ll do fine, so will the others, unless they are bombed and invaded, or their governments overthrown by Pinochet-like fascists. The U.S. tried on 2002, no doubt will try again. As I’ve often said, Chavez is a dead man walking.
Interesting mindset you’ve got there – imperialist to a tee. Never mind the bombing, terrorism, massacres, embargoes – they did it to themselves.
You don’t know me at all. You presume far too much.
You, I’m very familiar with. I’ve encountered you a thousand times in my travels, always the same self assuredness, historical ignorance, imperialist delusions. I used to be you. Until 1989.
LikeLike
>>>>That has almost an hypnotic quality about it
You are getting sleepy, very sleeeepy.
>>>>Your brush is so broad
One needs to generalize from the specific to the general. You like to take one singular event (…evidence that [Saddam] was approached by the CIA in Egypt prior to coming to power) and spin out your paranoid themes of America as puppet master to the world. Our abilities to affect outcomes is less than you imagine. “All politics is local.”
>>>>The Germans were also exemplary
This is the single most breathtakingly wrong line ever uttered in the history of mankind.
>>>>We used to be better, have more visionary leaders than we do now.
What has happened is we have more information today, and our leaders and our behavior get a LOT more reportage, with an emphasis on the bad.
>>>>the answer is “another county’s checkpoint.”
I don’t believe you. Maybe another European country, because they have better food.
>>>>Look at the Israelis, once the oppressed, now the oppressor.
Another laugher. The Arabs in Israel live safer and freer than the Arabs in surrounding countries. Don’t confuse security measures dictated by your neighbors with an inherent meanness.
>>>>we interfere in their internal governance, expropriate their best land, push them off to the side, marginalize their labor force, and extract their resources for ourselves for our own benefits.
Last time I checked, we pay the going rate for goods and services from other countries. You probably think we don’t pay enough, so you scroll the cliches as a way to complain.
>>>>WB and IMF demanded
I don’t particularly agree with these policies, either, but I don’t think there was maliciousness behind them.
>>>>They’ll do fine, so will the others
Not as well as they could have under different leadership. Chavez’s schemes have devalued the past capital investments in V., and the growth you tout is all oil. Little diversification. And he is courting the Chinese. Ha Ha. Let’s see who gets bent over in the long run.
>>>>Never mind the bombing, terrorism, massacres, embargoes
Never mind that we didn’t do any of this to Burma, Albania, or Turkmenistan. And they still suck. But your brain chemistry can’t change from the Blame America synoptic pathways.
>>>>You don’t know me at all.
I can only judge you from what you have written here, a kind of comic book morality about world events with America as the villain.
LikeLike
We are the most powerful country on the face of the earth – you can bet that if there are valuable resources to be had, Americans are there. But you’re right – we’re not everywhere, and not even concerned about most of what goes on around the world. (That’s why Rwanda went unchecked – there were no American interests involved. Never popped up on the radar screen.)
Saddam did not live in a vacuum – he came in contact with Americans (as did many – our CIA is always on the lookout for useful people), and received some critical support. That does not make him a puppet. But he understood the power game, and played ball with both the US and the USSR, playing one against the other. I imagine this enraged the Americans, but they could do nothing about it. He existed under the cover of the Cold War, safely tucked away in the shadow of the Soviet Union, so that the U.S. could not attack him without waking the bear.
You don’t quite get that he was not a puppet – but that he was heavily influenced by us – we sold him his weaponry and fought for him in containing Iran. We controlled him as we could. The critical thing that changed was the receding of the USSR. When that happened, all bets were off. It only took an event to provoke the US attack, and Kuwait was it. But it could have been anything else too. As we saw in 2003, when the US needs an excuse to attack someone, they can pretty well drum it up out of thin air. They have the power to create and control the narrative.
You’re thinking of the holocaust. I’m talking about the behavior of individual German soldiers. They were more cultured than the Americans, who tended to be brutish. Much has been written about this. The Holocaust was a product of demented leadership – not a flaw in the German character.
I’m talking about the Palestinians. You’d be wise not to go there.
You’re quite wrong – we usually get our corporations an investors into ownership positions, marginalize the local labor force, create an export economy, and profit for ourselves. The result is heavily polarized societies of extreme wealth and poverty. That’s colonialism.
Colonialists are never malicious. Read their histories of themselves. Then read the histories of the places they colonized written by the indigenous population. Quite a contrast.
I did not mention those places. You did. Lots of places suck. I’m only concerned with those places that have been harmed by Americans.
America behaves as powerful people have behaved throughout history. I takes what it wants from whomever it desires, and has within it a class of intellectuals and sycophants whose sole purpose is to justify that behavior. It’s always been that way. You’re wrong in thinking that I think America is particularly evil. You’re not listening. I’ll try again. America is simply not different.
LikeLike
>>>>…You don’t quite get that he was not a puppet – but that he was heavily influenced by us…
Pretty good exposition of your viewpoint. I don’t buy that we had much influence over Saddam in an appreciable way: he was consumed by his own agenda and his internal politics. We helped both sides in the Iran/Iraq war, but did it amount to much? Most of Saddam’s weaponry was Soviet.
>>>>You’re thinking of the holocaust. I’m talking about the behavior of individual German soldiers. They were more cultured than the Americans, who tended to be brutish…
I was thinking of all the Russian POWs, of whom, like, zero, survived the war.
The German officers were a cultured lot. The rank and file were plenty brutish.
>>>>I’m talking about the Palestinians. You’d be wise not to go there.
Don’t declare victory too soon. You’ll end up like this guy.
>>>>we usually get our corporations and investors into ownership positions, marginalize the local labor force, create an export economy, and profit for ourselves…
It sounds like you don’t like WalMart. But I notice everyone shops there.
>>>>I’m only concerned with those places that have been harmed by Americans
I don’t think you have a good handle on how countries deal with war, its after effects, and their later development. You filter everything through the “America is powerful and evil” lens. Look at Korea: occupied and brutalized by Japan in WWII, decimated by the Korean war, but today South Korea is one of the world’s largest economies, and North Korea is the worker’s paradise. There is a lot more that goes into what makes a country work.
>>>>[America] takes what it wants from whomever it desires…America is simply not different.
America is different in some key ways. We exited WWII a big victor, but we controlled less land area than before the war. We use our power and influence to encourage market economies and trade. I imagine you are now yelling that this is cover for corporate colonialism, but I would argue it is at least a step up from the feudal type colonialism of the 19th century.
LikeLike
Like I said, he played on against the other. But he got his chemical and biological stuff from us and the French. Do you think we are just passive spectators? As early as 1963 Allen Dulles called Iraq “the most dangerous spot in the world”, the 1963 coup in Iraq was CIA sponsored, Saddam was a participant. The US is not one to openly rule foreign lands, and so looks for puppets to put in place. Constantly on the lookout, and Saddam was spotted as someone having potential. But the dynamics are far more complicated than that, and after the Iran/Iraq war, when the Soviets were gone, he misperceived his role, got too big for his britches, so to speak, and had to be taken out.
But it was never about crimes or threats to us – we supported him right through his very worst offenses against humanity, including the gassing of Kurds in 1987. That’s not an issue. He was a small player in a big play, a place where empires collided. He did not grasp the big picture. Nor do you.
In any good and effective propaganda system, you’re going to know about the crimes your enemies commit, but not your own country’s misdeeds.
When labor unions are virtually illegal, people race to the bottom. Are you proud of WalMart? Would you like to have their wages? Health care? Is this the best your way can give us?
South Korea was state-fascist until the mid-1980’s, and is still occupied. But they are largely thrown off the yoke of colonialism. If you are saying they are beneficiaries of colonialism, then you don’t see the same world I see. Colonialism impedes development. It is only when people throw it off that they prosper.
Countries that have been de facto colonized by the US have not prospered. If is only when they break free that they do, and it is when they attempt to break free that we visit them with marines and bombs and suddenly become concerned about their drug traffic …
You fundamentally misunderstand the world order.
Here’s the inside scoop – there are not enough resources for everyone to live like us, or the Europeans, or the Japanese. Those who attempt to break free from colonial status are dangerous, set a bad example (“dominoes”, we once called them), and have to be brought back into the fold. Any amount of violence is justified. That’s why the US was willing to spend so much for so little in Vietnam. They threatened us with a bad example.
LikeLike
>>>>But he got his chemical and biological stuff from us and the French.
I don’t think it was like, one day, someone said, “Hey, let’s give Saddam some chemical weapons.” The chemicals were sold to him for other purposes. This is mainly bureaucracy being nice. You’re telling me there were some cynical people in DC behind the scenes facilitating this at the behest of Power. I’m not sure there is anything down that road. But, I will go back and do a little research. Maybe read a couple Nation articles.
>>>>In any good and effective propaganda system, you’re going to know about the crimes your enemies commit, but not your own country’s misdeeds.
WWII and its deeds/misdeeds are pretty well documented, including American misdeeds. I’m not saying our troops sat around singing Kumbaya, but relative to other countries, American troops were approachable and friendly.
>>>>Is this the best your way can give us?
I hold out for better. Your side is proud of Cuba. I’ll pass on that.
>>>>Colonialism impedes development…Countries that have been de facto colonized by the US have not prospered.
You put too much stock in the effects of colonialism. A country’s human capital and governing institutions are a better measure. South Korea and West Germany recovered from war without internal genocide. North Korea and East Germany less so.
LikeLike