🚀 go-pugleaf

In pdx.general Russell Senior <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote:
:>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew  <SEE_BELOW_TO_REPLY@bizaveNOSPAM.com> writes:

: Russell> I wonder, just what _are_ "US interests" around the world.
: Russell> This expression is used so often as a placeholder without
: Russell> ever examining what it represents.

: Andrew> Well, our economic interests are some of "US interests" for
: Andrew> one.  Obviously, we sell to countries all over the world, so
: Andrew> we need to keep those markets safe and open so we can keep
: Andrew> selling.  

: What gives us the right to demand that we can sell into those markets?
: Whose countries are they, anyway?  If it is in the interests of other
: countries to maintain, say, food security for example, by refusing to
: destroy local food economies by opening them up to cheap US imports,
: and putting themselves at the mercy of US views of righteousness, what
: gives us the right to demand they do?

"Protecting our economic interests" doesn't mean "keep your markets
open or we'll bomb you" (or coersion).  Our military presence actually
helps stability in parts of the world (e.g. Balkans - look how it was
before we went in there).  Peace is better for the world economy
(unless you are selling weapons).

: Andrew> And we need to import oil because, as of today, our economy is
: Andrew> dependent on it.

: What happened to supply and demand?  If we offer enough money, surely
: we will find a willing seller, right?  Why the need for military
: coersion?

Again, you are the one reading "coersion" into what I wrote - I didn't
say or mean that.

: Andrew> [...] We also have interests in promoting American values
: Andrew> (e.g. human rights), [...]

: We have an interest in selling the US public on the idea that we care
: about human rights overseas.  We don't, really.  We just use that for
: smoke screen when it suits our purposes.  When you accept this
: reality, our foreign policy starts to make a lot more sense.

That's cynical bullshit, Russell.  The US gives humanitarian aid all
over the world - often aided by our military.  When there's an
earthquake or a big disaster around the world, who's usually the first
to help?  The US government.  How often do we get credit for that?

Of course, detractors of the US like to forget all the good our
government does in the world and focus soley on the things they don't
like about it.  I most definitely have problems with the way our
government handles foreign policy in certain areas, but that doesn't
mean I hate *everything* our government does.  Some of the things the
US has done are shameful, I agree (as will some in government who have
since come to power).  We need to reform the government, not disavow
it outright.

: Russell> The thing that we Americans don't seem to be conscious of is
: Russell> that this "Land of the Free" is holding a rather large gun to
: Russell> the heads of the Oil Producing States and asking them
: Russell> politely to hand over their oil for our convenience.  One of
: Russell> them gets a little out of line, like Iraq or Iran or
: Russell> Venezuela, and watch out.

: Andrew> But the Saudis *want* us in their country, to help prop up
: Andrew> their regime.  And Iraq and Iran have demonstrated their
: Andrew> support for terrorism and expansionism.

: Let's make an important distinction here.  They Saudi "royalty" want
: us in their country, as far as we can tell.  We have no basis upon
: which to judge what the Saudi Arabian people want.  It seems that a
: number of them don't.

You won't find 100% agreement in any country about its own
government's policies...

: While we are on the subject of the Saudi's, if you are all worried
: about human rights of foreign women, shouldn't we be overthrowing the
: Saudi government next?  I mean, come on, I thought we had a coherent
: foreign policy?

I never said we did - would you stop putting words in my mouth?  The
point I made that you must have overlooked was that you can't tell
what's happening in foreign policy by watching the evening news.
Often you can't really tell what's happening until after it happens.
Sad but true - foreign policy is a complex game that is extremely hard
to understand at the time it's happening, even by those closely
involved.

: Iraq invaded an intransigent neighbor over a border dispute after our
: ambassador had essentially given them a green light.  We already had
: an active plan to destroy Iraq militarily *before* the invasion
: occurred.  Now, call them stupid for falling for the trick, okay, but
: a trick is a trick.

So you're saying you think the US tricked Iraq into invadeing Kuwait
so we could come up with a reason for Desert Storm?  Sorry, that's
another conspiracy theory I don't buy into.  I blame any mixed signals
the Iraqi's got on poor communication or even incompetence in our
government (someone asleep at the wheel).  Others want to look for
something more sinister...

: Andrew> Come one, now - the Middle East has always been a tough dance
: Andrew> for American foreign policy, since 1948.  It does sound silly
: Andrew> the way the Bush administration seems to be talking out of
: Andrew> both sides of its mouth regarding Israel, but I kind of
: Andrew> understand why they act that way.

: Oh, I understand too.  The Palestians have no effective domestic
: lobby.  The Israelis want to turn the Palestinians into soap,
: figuratively.  The abused become the abusers.  It is all too
: pathologically familiar.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Middle East here - too
long for this thread...

: Russell> Hell, _we_ give billions of dollars to terrorists.  We
: Russell> train them at our military bases.  What were you saying
: Russell> about "coherent"?

: Andrew> The US Government certainly didn't organize the plot to fly
: Andrew> planes into buildings...

: We give billions of dollars a year to people who bomb civilian areas
: and say how wonderfully successful it was.  We gave/give lots of money
: to bomb, mine and terrorize Central and South Americans.  We've
: conspired countless times to overthrow foreign governments.

We also used to condone slavery and wiped out a lot of Native
Americans.  The US government has done a lot of bad things in its
past (often condoned by the people it served).  Do you think we today
should blame the current government for everything past governments
did?  Or should we try to reform it?

: We've flown cruise missiles into buildings and didn't even bother with
: middle men.  There was an interview on "This American Life" of an
: immigrant from Iraq who hates Saddam Hussein, whose immediate and
: involuntary flashback upon seeing the video of the WTC was of a cruise
: missile hitting an office building in downtown Baghdad, I think it was
: a telephone switching center.  Poof, there goes your DSL.

It must be horrible to live in Bagdad with the threat of attacks like
that.  It also must have been horrible to live in Berlin in 1945 when
Hitler was still in power.  Undoubtedly Germans felt great bitterness
against the alies for the terror they endured in the last days of
World War II.  But that's what happens when your country is led by a
dictator like Saddam Hussein.  We cannot go easy on this thug who has
used chemical weapons on his own people (AFTER the end of the war with
Iran) and invaded another country, brutalizing the people then doing
such awful things as setting oil wells on fire and dumping oil on
the beaches.

: Russell> The overwhelming contrary opinion is pretty much uniformily
: Russell> from people who want to attack Iraq whether they have weapons
: Russell> of mass destruction or not.

: Andrew> If there was evidence that they HAD no weapons of mass
: Andrew> destruction and were not supporting anti-American terrorists,
: Andrew> no one would have any footing to demand military action
: Andrew> against Iraq.  

: a) what evidence would you find satisfactory? (and aren't you
:    requesting proof of a negative?)

How about allowing weapons inspectors back into Iraq?  That's a start?

: b) would you subject our own government to equivalent scrutiny?  

People already know we have weapons of mass destruction.  What more do
you need in the way of "scrutiny"?

: c) re: having no footing: exactly!  Thus the necessity of the idea
:    about weapons of mass destruction and the threat they supposedly
:    pose to us.

: Andrew> I for one do not believe conspiracy theories about trumped up
: Andrew> charges against Iraq for the sake of controlling their oil...

: But you have no problem believing conspiracy theories about how they
: are posing an enormous threat to us.  The Europeans apparently don't
: buy it, the other Arabs don't buy it, why do you?

The Europeans have proven time and time again they can't stand up to
anyone or solve much in the way of regional crises.  Hitler in the
1930's.  The Balkans in the 1990's.  They can't solve squat among
themselves without US help.  So I wouldn't put much credence in what
they think.

You don't need any more evidence about what Saddam Hussein would do
than what he has already shown the world he would do.  We can't let
this thug build up his military again.

: Russell> Hell, _we_ have got weapons of mass destruction.  _We_
: Russell> have actually _used_ them.  Who the /sbin/fsck is putting the
: Russell> hammer down on us?  To me, _that_ is the frightening thing.
: Russell> There is no obvious brake on the extent of our power.

: Andrew> We used two nukes in a brutal war in which both sides
: Andrew> committed horrible atrocities against each other.  That's
: Andrew> really not the same as using chemical weapons on your own
: Andrew> people, as Saddam Hussein did in the late 80's, 

: [...] in a context of a "brutal war" with Iran, where both countries
: apparently had been using chemical weapons.

That's right, he also used them against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war
- but I was talking about gassing the Kurds in Iraq after that war.

: Andrew> or invading another country, as he also did in 1990.

: Like, say, Mexico?

And we invaded Mexico - when?

: Andrew> Unchecked, he probably would have invaded Saudi Arabia, too.

: Actually, there is excellent evidence he intended no such thing.
: There are satellite photos showing no activity for months anywhere
: near the Saudi frontier, at the same time the Americans were pressing
: the Saudi's to let us in because we claimed the Iraqis were preparing
: to attack.

There wasn't a lot of time between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and
the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Shield.
I'm talking about invading Saudi Arabia months or years after Kuwait
(had no one stood up to him), not days or weeks.  The guy had already
invaded one country and had the 4th largest military in the world.  If
no one had contested Kuwait, why would he have stopped there?


: Andrew> This guy has demonstrated that he'll use brutal tactics to
: Andrew> achieve his ends whenever he has the strength to do so.  

: Just out of curiosity, whose tactics in the Gulf War were more brutal,
: the Iraqi's or the American's.  Who do you think killed more people?
: If you don't think that is relevant, please give me your definition of
: "brutal".

"Who was more brutal?" is kind of an irrelevant question here in the
context of a war.  Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait, a
sovereign country.  They were told to leave by the UN.  They didn't.
Sure, the US could have invaded without all the bombing of Iraq and  
killed a lot fewer Iraqi troops and civilians - at probably the
expense of far more American casualties.  We choose to make the
invader pay with their lives, not ours.  Makes sense as a military
strategy not to sacrifice more of your own troops than the enemy's...

: Andrew> Do you think he's a changed man now?  I don't.

: Have you stopped to seriously question our propaganda line that he is
: an irrational demon?  It seems like you haven't.

I don't need much convincing after knowing what this man has done in
the past.  Would you have trusted Hitler again if, say, he'd been able to
survive after 1945 as head of Germany, and then a few years later he
tried re-arming again?

For some reason you'd rather ignore what Hussein has done (clear for
all the world to see) and believe instead that the US has some wild
conspiracy about taking over Iraqi oil fields - and is trumping up
false charges against Iraq.  I'm not sure why, but I'm not surprised.
There were many leftists during (and before) the cold war who though
Stalin was doing great things in the Soviet Union, and they dismissed
all the reports of mass purges and mass murder as right-wing
propoganda.  Oops.  There were also those who claimed (for decades)
that Alger Hiss was innocent and that the Rosenbergs were innocent of
spying.  And then the Soviet archives were opened after 1991
and...gee, Hiss *was* a spy, and so was Julius Rosenberg.  Oops.
(Can you believe that Nixon was RIGHT about Hiss after all???)

: Andrew> The US doesn't drop chemical weapons on people and hasn't
: Andrew> dropped nukes since 1945 in its last war, despite numerous
: Andrew> opportunities to do - so I don't see how you have much ground
: Andrew> to worry about our crushing neighboring nations with our
: Andrew> weapons of mass destruction.  This is no longer the same
: Andrew> country that wiped out the Native Americans or allowed
: Andrew> slavery.  

: How many people have died in Iraq _since_ the gulf war?

And do you suppose the leader of Iraq gives a damn, while he works on
another palace?  It still amazes me how you are so sympathetic to a
monster over there and so quick to blame the US for everything.
<snip>

: Ask, what is "terrorism"?  By most definitions I've seen, the term
: would _not_ apply to the attack on either the USS Cole or the
: Pentagon, since they weren't civilian targets.  We certainly wouldn't
: want our enemies' military headquarters deemed civilian targets,
: because that might conflict with our desire to destroy them.

So...you're saying the attacks on the Cole and the Pentagon were
warranted because they were military targets?  (I.e. if it's not
technically "terrorism" then it's OK?)  Gee, that's the first
time I've heard *that* kind of nonsense...

: Andrew> I think you worry too much about this US "threat" to the rest
: Andrew> of the world.

: As an American, that is a remarkably easy position for you to have.
: If you lived in Guatamala or Chile or Vietnam or Iraq or Somalia or,
: or, or ... , you might have a different perspective.

Suffering does tend to have a big psychological and emotional impact 
on the victims in such countries, so I can imagine it would be simple
for them to blame the US for everything and not their own leaders.
They see US jets dropping bombs, and their propoganda tells them that
the US is trying to bomb hospitals.  How do you expect the people to
feel?

The US as I've said has done some bad things over the years (Vietnam
certainly comes to the top), but  I also tend to blame the leaders of 
nations (Iraq, Somalia) more than I blame the US for their suffering.
You for some reason want to blame the US for everything and hold the
countries' leader blameless.  This still baffles me, Russell.

We'll have to save the debate about education for another time...

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/  <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/    <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************


To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply".  Email address
scrambled for security.  Instead, please visit the web page:

http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/contact.cgi/subject=Re:%20Re:%20Call%20Me%20A%20Liberal/newsgroup=pdx.general,seattle.general,ba.general,la.general/messageid=cuaxczcasdzcasd108422042205@bizaveNOSPAM.com