Rearden, I think that essay has been cited before, but I just read it and found it pretty illuminating and thought-provoking.
Rearden, Just finished the article, and it seems to confirm the inconsistency in the first post. America, with it's freedoms and opportunities is the envy of much of the world. And I think you could make many of the arguments he makes, in other parts of the world, if you replace "Arab Street". "The only contribution Arab nations make is oil." This presupposes that most Americans would do more than "turn on the well" each day if we were in the same boat. Most of us were just lucky to be born in America where a 12 hour day pays above average wages. I don't know that the De Beers Cartel is much better than OPEC when it comes to human rights issues and the sharing of the wealth with workers. Or the use of some diamond money to fund terrorism for that matter, just a hunch mind you. So maybe we need to invade some countries in Africa to show thems whats what. South America is a hot bed of terrorist activity. And perhaps one or two human rights issues. I would add that the importation of certain products has led to considerable instability in this country from both a security standpoint and a financial one. Are they next? The war in Afghanistan to me was the only solution that came to mind, then and now. However with Iraq it is not so cut and dry in my mind. There are quite a few things domestically that would make me feel safer than this leg of the war on terror.
trdrmac, glad you took the time to read through that essay. I'm sure it bettered your understanding, at least to some extent. *****"The only contribution Arab nations make is oil." This presupposes that most Americans would do more than "turn on the well" each day if we were in the same boat. Most of us were just lucky to be born in America where a 12 hour day pays above average wages.***** Sure, I'd agree with you on that one. ***I don't know that the De Beers Cartel is much better than OPEC when it comes to human rights issues and the sharing of the wealth with workers. Or the use of some diamond money to fund terrorism for that matter, just a hunch mind you. *** Name one terrorist act against American civilians committed by African non-Muslims....or non-Muslims of any type for that matter. ***South America is a hot bed of terrorist activity. And perhaps one or two human rights issues. I would add that the importation of certain products has led to considerable instability in this country from both a security standpoint and a financial one. Are they next?*** South American thugs are not attacking Americans, but rather providing us with a valuable and enjoyable product due to circumstances created by the Anti-Capitalistic, Anti-Freedom, American prohibitionist politicians.
"Name one terrorist act against American civilians committed by African non-Muslims....or non-Muslims of any type for that matter." Oklahoma City comes to mind, although I doubt that De Beers had much to do with that one. -______________________________________ Sorry, forgot to put the word FORIEGN in that sentence....but that's what I meant.
Does this country have the moral authority to lead the world? by Stephen Gowans It claims to be conducting a war on terrorism against a network (al-Qaeda) it helped create to fight proxy wars on its behalf (in Afghanistan and the Balkans.) It says it must bring anthrax terrorists to justice, but has the world's largest stockpile of smallpox, anthrax, and other biological weapons. It continues to experiment with new weaponized pathogens. It refuses to agree to measures to strengthen a biological weapons treaty. And there's evidence it has used biological weapons (in the Korean War.) It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia. In one country alone (South Korea), which it has occupied for over five decades, it has 45,000 soldiers. The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out terrorism, but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as John Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells. It's always strapped for cash when it comes to social spending, health care and Social Security, but can find billions at the drop of a hat for a new weapons program. Its colossal military is more than two and half times larger than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba.) Its military spending, combined with that of its allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia), is five times greater than that of the next nine largest potential adversaries together. Yet, it says, it's always under threat. In the last five decades, it has attacked no less than two dozen countries. In the last four years, it has bombed four countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq) one of them in two separate campaigns (Afghanistan), and one almost daily (Iraq.) Even though the raison d'tre of the major military alliance it leads (NATO) has vanished, the alliance is more robust than ever, and is expanding. It refuses to sign a treaty banning land mines. It refuses to sign the Kyoto Accords, limiting greenhouse gasses. It uses cluster bombs -- bombs consisting of dozens of tiny land mine-like bomblets -- which continue to kill, usually children, well after a war is finished. It has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons. It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It refuses to renounce the first strike use of nuclear weapons. It won't commit to refraining from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. It is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. It says it doesn't target civilians, but, in maintaining the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, is prepared to kill civilians in countless numbers. In one major campaign lasting over ten years (Vietnam War), it carpet bombed three countries (North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), killing at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, it carpet bombed North Korea so thoroughly it ran out of targets to bomb. It issues ultimata to other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan), and when the ultimata are rejected, it says the other side refused to negotiate. When the other side begs to negotiate, it's bombed. It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around the clock with only a few civilian casualties. It announces in advance of a bombing campaign that some civilian deaths are inevitable, and then, when they occur, say they were accidental and unintended. It bombs civilian infrastructure -- water treatment facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage, pumping stations, sewage facilities, bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizer factories, auto-plants, as well as hospitals, schools, old folks homes, Red Cross buildings, and residential neighborhoods. After reducing its enemies to rubble, it imposes sanctions to hinder the rebuilding of all that was destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq), until a puppet regime is installed (Yugoslavia.) It enforces one sanctions regime (Iraq) that is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million civilians. One of the country's leaders (Madeleine Albright) said the deaths are "worth it." If it doesn't like another country's economic policies, it tars the leadership as tyrants and brutes, declares the country a dictatorship, and raises concern about human rights violations (Yugoslavia, Belarus) and railroads the leaders into jail (Yugoslavia) or arranges to have them overthrown in a coup (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Yugoslavia.) Authoritarian countries whose leaders are tyrants and brutes and who routinely trample human rights are called friends and allies if they have the right economic policies (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti.) Their leaders don't go to jail (Pinochet.) It routinely intervenes in the elections of other countries, funding political parties, NGO's and media, but prohibits other countries from intervening in its own elections. It commits war crimes unrestrainedly, free from censure and prosecution, because it controls the international body that establishes war crimes tribunals. It refuses to sign a treaty to establish a international criminal court that could prosecute war crimes free from its interference. Its media is described as practicing "suck-up" journalism, afraid to be too critical of the country's leadership, for fear of being frozen out and refused access to "news makers." The media regards itself as duty-bound by patriotism to assist in the production and dissemination of propaganda in times of war, a now permanent condition. The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark. It has the largest prison population per capita in the world. In one of its largest states (California), it spends more on prisons than education. The infant mortality rate in its capital is higher than that of a third world country it has blockaded economically for four decades (Cuba), and whose politics it doesn't like. Criticism of the country's foreign policy is dealt with by assigning dismissive labels to the critics (anti-American, communists), threats of legal sanction (charges of sedition), or threats of deportation (to Cuba.) The criticisms themselves are never addressed. The country forces the poor and wretched of the world to adopt austere economic policies that it, itself, would never adopt, for fear of economic ruin. The polices have the effect of intensifying the misery of the world's poor, while increasing the wealth of the country's business elite. The country claims to have a free press, but only the wealthiest can own the press. Not surprisingly, the press reflects the interests of the wealthy. It's said that anyone can become leader of the country, but only those who can ingratiate themselves with the wealthiest citizens can raise the funds and backing to occupy the country's highest offices. The president, the cabinet, and most elected representatives, have either been bought by, or are members of, the country's economic elite. The country's foreign policies have caused illimitable suffering throughout much of the world for decades. This has led to it being reviled over the greater part of the globe. Its leader (George W. Bush) can only reply, "I don't know why. We're doing such a good job." Mr. Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada. America's list of terrorism http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/American/list.html American War Crimes http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/American/
Not true. We're actually pulling out of many of our bases and decreasing our military footprint abroad (especially in Germany, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia). And, yes, the USSR was bent on spreading soviet communism and proping up governments and military groups throughout eastern Europe, the Caribbean, SE Asia, etc. I agree with some of the points in the article, but you have to admit that much of it is just an effort to pile crap onto the anti-America case. At least be accurate AND insert your own thoughts on the matter once and awhile!
US Military Bases: the Spoils and Deceptions of War by KURT NIMMO Donald Rumsfeld says the US does not want its troops in countries where they are not welcome. "You want to be someplace that people want us, you really do," he admitted in an interview. "We don't want to be places that we're not wanted. We simply don't." No word if the interviewer laughed or even scoffed. What Rumsfeld said is so deceptive that it transcends absurdity. He said the size of the US military force in the Gulf region would likely shrink now that the Iraqi military no longer poses a threat to its neighbors. "With the absence of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the need for a US presence in the region would diminish rather than increase," he said. The US has troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. So, will the US simply yank up its tent stakes and go home? ctd - http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo04282003.html
_____________________________________ Thought I could slip that by you, but I figured you meant foreign. And to say against Americans specifically there is nothing that comes to mind.
Does this country have the moral authority to lead the world? msfe _____________________________________ msfe posting on "moral authority" is an oxymoron. Like those little ground squirrels he hides under a rock and then comes out every once in a while, moons everybody, and then scurries back under the rock and tells himself he is making a great statement. LOL