🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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'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.

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?)

b) would you subject our own government to equivalent 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?

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.

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

Like, say, Mexico?

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.

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".

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.

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?

Some people consider so-called "daisy cutters" to be weapons of mass
destruction.  If you want to think clearly about these things, try to
pin people down when they start throwing terms around without
definitions.  E.g., see:

  <http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/norfolk/wmd.htm>

which says, in part:

  ``[...] A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically
    associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological
    agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the
    bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
    Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the
    consequences of its release overwhelm local responders.''

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.

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.

Andrew> Your premise seems to be that the US wants to attack Iraq over
Andrew> oil and is exaggerating claims about weapons and support for
Andrew> terrorism as a cover for such an attack.  

Read this:

  <http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-intro.html>

and this:

  <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/>

_then_ come back and tell me the US is interested in human rights and
doesn't care about Iraq's oil enough to fabricate a pretext to seize
control of it.

Andrew> I'm no expert on the subject, but in general, I think teachers
Andrew> should be paid more, so that we attract the best minds into
Andrew> public education instead of treating teachers like
Andrew> second-class citizens.  At the same time, we need to hold
Andrew> teachers more accountable for their performance.  

How do you isolate the variables to make "accountability" actually
work?  From what I understand, academic performance is most highly
correlated with the proportion of students coming from families with
well-educated parents.  Other things that get talked about, like class
size, frequent testing, etc, are down in the noise, relatively
speaking.  What simple "accountability" tests will acheive is to
further punish teachers in schools in poor neighborhoods and further
reward those in schools in affluent neighborhoods, which is completely
pointless and counter-productive.  I say "further" because obviously a
teacher seeing their students succeed is a reward in itself and seeing
their students fail is a punishment in itself.

Two other points: a) how is paying teachers more _not_ throwing money
at the problem?  b) if that would work, why _not_ throw money at the
problem and sort out the "accountability" issue later.  If talented
people thought they could make a good, stable, personally-rewarding
living as teachers, the problem would solve itself.

Andrew> Sadly, teachers and their unions must spend too much time
Andrew> worrying about their own jobs and benefits because too often
Andrew> they aren't treated well or paid enough - and when teachers
Andrew> threaten to strike and such they come off looking badly (and
Andrew> the public holds them in even less esteem).

Hmm, curious.  When I see teachers striking, I see a group of people
refusing to shield the taxpayers from the delusion (fostered most
notably during the Reagan administration) that their desires for can
be realized without paying for them.


-- 
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.' ''