🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew  <SEE_BELOW_TO_REPLY@bizaveNOSPAM.com> writes:

Russell> What gives us the right to demand that we can sell into those
Russell> markets?  [...]

Andrew> "Protecting our economic interests" doesn't mean "keep your
Andrew> markets open or we'll bomb you" (or coersion).  

It frequently _does_ mean precisely that.  Look at Cuba.  We weren't
going to invade Cuba because they were a threat to us (this was
pre-missile crisis), we were going to invade them because they
asserted their _own_ economic interests.

Andrew> Our military presence actually helps stability in parts of the
Andrew> world.

But only if our military presence is seen as a neutral arbiter.  Only
Americans (and political sycophants like the UK) think they are.

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

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

Yes, I _am_ saying that.  My point is that WHY DO WE CARE who controls
the oil in the middle east?  For the oil to have value, it must
ultimately be sold, and we can buy it then.  The purpose of our
military/political "alliances" in the middle east is to ensure we get
a "nice" price and a steady flow by means of bribery, "protection" for
exploiting elites, and other chicanery.

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

Cynical when compared to what, Andrew?  Your rose-colored
amber-waves-of-grain freedom-and-liberty sun-glasses-tinted vision?

You'd be surprised at how little humanitarian aid we actually do give.
I've said this before, most of the humanitarian aid we give (less per
capita than most developed countries) is in the form of credits to buy
american grain or american machinery.  Sort of like Microsoft giving
$X million of software to schools, which costs them about $10k in
marginal costs to produce.

Andrew> Of course, detractors of the US like to forget all the good
Andrew> our government does in the world and focus soley on the things
Andrew> they don't like about it.  

I am a detractor of this kind of behavior because it is done in my
name and I risk its consequences when people in other parts of the
world get so angry that they are willing to kill themselves flying
into buildings.  In my political philosophy, I _am_ responsible for
what my government does in my name.  And therefore, I take an active
interest in what it does.

Andrew> [...] We need to reform the government, not disavow it outright.

Now who is putting words in other peoples mouths?

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

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

Not relevant to what I said.  My point is that you are conflating what
the ruling elites want and what the average Saudi wants.

Andrew> [...] The point I made that you must have overlooked was
Andrew> that you can't tell what's happening in foreign policy by
Andrew> watching the evening news.  

Of course not!  That's the _last_ place to figure out what is going
on.  May be why I don't watch it.

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

Andrew> So you're saying you think the US tricked Iraq into invadeing
Andrew> Kuwait so we could come up with a reason for Desert Storm?

Essentially, yes.  You really ought to learn more about what was
happening in the middle east immediately prior to the invasion of
Kuwait instead of relying on the nightly news for your information.
The Iraqi's had recently ended their war with Iran and were trying to
rebuild.  The Kuwaiti's were violating OPEC quotas on oil production,
(ironically, with Iraq's own oil), pretty much at our behest,
expressly for the purpose of forcing down oil prices, reducing Iraq's
oil revenue and thus weakening Iraq.  Why?  They hadn't invaded anyone
yet.  They were a sovereign country, just like Kuwait.  

Try reading _The Fire This Time_, by Ramsey Clark.  It is extensively
footnoted and lays out the history.  Out of print, but available at
the library.

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

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

Whatever.

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

Oh, I think we should try to reform it.  I blame the current
government for what the current government is doing, but I look to the
painfully extracted truth of what our past governments have done as
relevant to what they are doing now.

Andrew> It must be horrible to live in Bagdad with the threat of
Andrew> attacks like that.  It also must have been horrible to live in
Andrew> Berlin in 1945 when Hitler was still in power.  Undoubtedly
Andrew> Germans felt great bitterness against the alies for the terror
Andrew> they endured in the last days of World War II.  But that's
Andrew> what happens when your country is led by a dictator like
Andrew> Saddam Hussein.  

Here's where I think you go wrong.  It is _SO_ _FUCKING_ _EASY_ for
the government to demonize people we don't officially like, that you
have to actively resist it.  Maybe they _are_ bad people, but for
christsake consider the source of your information about them and the
mixed motives they have in propagating this stuff.

Andrew> We cannot go easy on this thug who has used chemical weapons
Andrew> on his own people (AFTER the end of the war with Iran) and
Andrew> invaded another country, brutalizing the people then doing
Andrew> such awful things as setting oil wells on fire and dumping oil
Andrew> on the beaches.

There is evidence (see book referred to above) that he was _not_
responsible for those things and that the oil spills were the result
of our bombing.  Sure, we blamed him, but that doesn't make it true.
Demand and examine evidence.

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.

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

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

Well, that depends on whether the inspectors are just scouting for the
next bombing run.  I suspect that is the source of reluctance.

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

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

How about evidence we won't use them?

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

Andrew> The Europeans have proven time and time again they can't stand
Andrew> up to anyone or solve much in the way of regional crises.

A lawyer would call that non-responsive.  I'll ask the question again:
Why do you believe Iraq poses enough of a threat that we should invade
their country?  I'll guess that your reply boils down to that our
government told you that he does.  Incoming clue: Governments Lie!
That includes ours.

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,

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

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

According to the BBC:
 
  <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm>

 Chemical attack on Kurds

   1988 16 March - Iraq is said to have used chemical weapons against
                   the Kurdish town of Halabjah.

   1988 20 August - A ceasefire comes into effect to be monitored by
                    the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group
                    (UNIIMOG).

That puts it _during_ the war with Iran.  Note that I am _not_
defending Iraq's use of chemical weapons, only demonstrating that your
defense of our use of nuclear weapons as fundamentally different is
specious.

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

Russell> Like, say, Mexico?

Andrew> And we invaded Mexico - when?

Well, that particular invasion was before the Civil War, but we've
invaded many countries since then.  Here's a list for just Latin
America:

  <http://www.zompist.com/latam.html>

Andrew> There wasn't a lot of time between the Iraqi invasion of
Andrew> Kuwait and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia as part
Andrew> of Desert Shield.  

Please review the evidence.

Andrew> I'm talking about invading Saudi Arabia months or years after
Andrew> Kuwait (had no one stood up to him), not days or weeks.

Why do we _care_ who controls the oil fields?  Honestly?

Andrew> "Who was more brutal?" is kind of an irrelevant question here
Andrew> in the context of a war.  

You just got done telling me that the guy is a brutal person and needs
to be dealt with harshly.  If brutality is irrelevant, why did you
rely on it in your accusation?

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

I didn't say they were "warranted", I said they weren't terrorism by
the common definition.  If you are going to use a word honestly, then
stick to its definition.

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

Look up "cognitive dissonance".  You are subjected to as much (if not
much, much more) propaganda than the people being bombed.

Andrew> [...] You for some reason want to blame the US for everything
Andrew> and hold the countries' leader blameless.  This still baffles
Andrew> me, Russell.

I want to blame to US government for what IT DOES.  I want to do that
because it represents ME.  It my responsibility to do what I can to
see that it represents my interests in _real_ freedom and justice.
Foreign leaders do _not_ represent me.  I don't have any direct
influence on them.  They are responsible for their own actions, but
that doesn't absolve _OUR_ government from the actions that _IT_
takes.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''