WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Lola wrote:

You see it as the UN not functioning optimally.......and it doesn't, but to me that's simply the reality we have to deal with. My definition of the problem is that there are those (and they are presently in power in my country) who are impatient and unwilling to tolerate the pain of maturation and development.

You say the UN is not functioning optimally------that is probably the understatement of the Year and that it is still maturing and developing. Wow----they've only had 52 years to mature----how much longer should we wait?

Lola, you and Blatham could teach the North Korens about evading a posed question seeking some neutral ground for agreement-----I'm not ready to give up though

0 Replies

Perc -- You speak of the UN as though it were separate from us, a servant who hasn't washed the dishes yet and after all this time, grumble grumble. But we are an equal part of the UN, and our withholding of dues over the years hasn't helped matters, nor has our attitude of horror that some "third world country" could get to chair a committee and oppose our point of view... We neither own the UN nor are we separate from it. It's like a family we have helped create only now it's a drag so we'll waltz off by ourselves or with someone else.

0 Replies

george

As there are many parts of the world where conditions are much more ugly than was the case in Iraq, then I'm led to conclude that the US presence there is not about human rights.

As interventions by the US in other states offer very few examples of humanitarian motive, and many many more of economic/strategic motive, I am led to conclude that the US presence in Iraq is not about human rights.

What is there to contradict this conclusion? A small handful of cases and the words of present leaders and some Americans' idea that the conclusion must be wrong.

You rephrase my argument to "hubris or an exaggerated sense of power". I am not talking about an exaggerated sense of power, but of an exaggerated sense of national moral goodness.

On the question of power, the US is not self-deluded (except perhaps once again, as in Viet Nam, deluded in thinking shiny and expensive weapons are everything). No one else come close to matching the US in military power.

But on the question of moral rectitude, you guys can be as dull as the thugs your nation commonly supports. You can be the other face of this too, truly good hearted. And it is even arguable that this positive side is markedly greater than the negative. But YOU ARE TOO DAMNED UNWILLING TO SEE THE OTHER AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. And that is, I believe, what is coming at you now. After 9-11, any attempt to even consider how US policy and behavior abroad might be complicit in fomenting the event was immediately disallowed, labeled traitorous.

I'm not optimistic. I think you guys are writing the narrative of a Shakespearean tragedy - powerful, with so much that is good and noble, but with a flaw you somehow cannot face.

0 Replies

It's nice to have someone out there who sees and understands and writes about the horror so accurately, Blatham. I'm convinced that those who don't see this just don't want to and will use every device -- rhetorical and other -- to shield themselves. Ain't nuthin' can be done about that... National hubris isn't just a cloud that somehow blew in over our heads. It's collective disability, shared by many Americans, the ones who invested in the Edsel and will proclaim till their dying days that it's a great vehicle. That's why this is all so terminal, so defeating. And Shakespearean. And (in some cases) Buster Keaton.

0 Replies

Blatham wrote:

I'm not optimistic. I think you guys are writing the narrative of a Shakespearean tragedy - powerful, with so much that is good and noble, but with a flaw you somehow cannot face.

We're facing up to it just fine----it's the "bit" players on the sidelines who are wringing their hands, gnashing their teeth and peaching the end of the world.

Let's face it Blatham,you and the rest of the world will never comprehend the "can do" attitude that made this country great. We make mistakes, and get knocked down a lot but we get back up, dust ourselves off and keep on trying to make ourselves better and the world a better place. It's a damn shame that you don't share our vision as the Brits do. Maybe if you won't help us then perhaps you will be so kind as to get out of the way.

0 Replies

Quote:

the rest of the world will never comprehend the "can do" attitude that made this country great. We make mistakes, and get knocked down a lot but we get back up, dust ourselves off and keep on trying to make ourselves better and the world a better place

All the while ignoring the mess we just made in another fiasco. "Can do" often means "didn't think."

0 Replies

A breath of fresh air from the Religious community:Bush doesn't get his instructions from their god

Quote:

"I'm a born-again, Bible-believing, corn bread-craving Texan. And I feel obliged to say that because there's a carpetbagger in the White House," the Rev. James Dunn, a Baptist, said in referring to Bush, a former Texas governor. Dunn and Pennybacker were among network members describing the new group at a news conference Friday.

0 Replies

Blatham,

As I indicated several times earlier, the United tates has been guided by a combination of its perceived self interest and concerns for the advance of freedom and democracy in its strategy in most parts of the world. Even the US insistence on allied interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo was not without some elements of self interest. There are many cases on tyranny and inhumanity in the world. We cannot address them all. We must chose those that present a natural priority for us (such as a threat to security) and in which we can secure a good outcome.

Many such situations simply do not lend themselves to improvement by outside powers. Zimbabwe is perhaps a good example. The neighboring African states, perhaps motivated by the feeling that they have had quite enough already of European intervention and management of their affairs, have expressed their unwillingness to tolerate any outside intervention, As long as this is the case there is very little we, the much vaunted ICC, or the UN can do about it. This will be tragic for tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Zimbabwians, but little can be done for them.

We have discussed the Iraqi intervention at great length. There were and are several excellent strategic reasons for this intervention, in addition to the removal of a cruel tyrant from the backs of the Iraqi people. The WMD question gained prominence only because the UN would countenance no other issue in its deliberations. (This alone should cause you and Lola some reflection with respect to the potential of such international bodies to stamp out oppression, inhumanity, and aggression against neighbors in the family of nations.). The very dramatic process in the Security Council with all the posturing by the French, created the illusion that this was the only or the primary factor motivating our government. The fact is it was neither.

Though I explicitly referred only to a sense of power in my remarks about hubris, I did mean to include a sense of righteousness. Again I believe that we are a victim to all that (so far) much less than were Britain, France, and Germany in their moments in the historical sun. Why should these people hold us to a standard they themselves have never met?

I also believe it would be very difficult to make the case that the United States is at all in the grip of moral certitude. The debate over policy and the Iraq matter in particular has been quite vigorous, and the country (and government) is far from unanimous or even free of doubt about the matter. I suspect you will counter with the boogey man of the radical Christian right seething in bloodthirsty frenzy to annihilate the wicked enemies and all that. That is a fiction. The President of course must project an attitude of confidence and certainty - that is simply a psychological necessity for any leader who chooses a risky path for the people he leads.

0 Replies

what ARE you guys talking about?

0 Replies

They are optimally expressing optimal opinions about how our own government is optimally operating. This is outmoded optimal optimism.

0 Replies

Actually, Georgeob1, being the terminal realist that he is has a handle on it all. The trouble is, the handle is melting as we wait.

0 Replies

perc

"The Brits" aren't supporting you. The majority of Brits hold Bush and his policies to be a grave world danger. Blair will likely not survive the next election - and the probability of that increases as terror strikes continue to increase in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide. Bush likely will survive his next election because he will present the threat of increasing worldwide instability in the manner most guaranteed to terrify you (watch for this) and present himself and his policies as the brave and resolute solution, notwithstanding that it is precisely in the context of his policies that the decline in world stability has occured. You can read about how this will all go down in the classic tragedy "Othellogeorgeob". Here's a bit from early in the play...

OTHELLOGEORGEOB: And stood they close together, Osama and Sadaam?

BUSHIAGO: So close that their breaths did kiss.

The ending isn't pretty. But what the hell, it's a great read.

0 Replies

Blatham,

Nice metaphor, and you expressed a lot with it.

There are two propositions, often accepted without reservation or comment in these discussions, which should be examined for their veracity.

The first is that the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are the continuing cause of Islamist terrorism. That without them we would be mostly free of it, and would presumably be solving the Moslem world's dilemma with respect to its own backwardness by other means. One may wish also to throw in U.S. support for Israel here.

The second is that existing and proposed international institutions such as the UN and the ICC would somehow solve such problems as the thug regimes in Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and other areas; expansionist impulses in China with respect to Taiwan, Tibet and the South China Sea; and as well, the terrorism and instability resulting from the Islamist movement in the Moslem world, -- if only the United States would support them more.

Blatham's arguments implicitly and fully evoke both propositions. Both are false (at least in my view). Certainly both are arguable - neither self-evident nor compelling.

The growing Islamist radicalism in the Moslem world is a result of historical forces whose origins go back several centuries. Sixty years ago most of the world's Moslems lived under some form of European colonial government, generally involving high degrees of economic exploitation by the European powers. That and the centuries-long struggle between Europeans and the Ottoman empire are the seeds of the current problem. It is absurd to suggest that the United States somehow created this problem.

The UN has amply demonstrated its inability to act in the resolution of difficult international disputes in the absence of a compelling, pre-existing common interest among nations large and small. When such common interest exists, the UN is often successful in working out a plan and (within limits) carrying it out. In general it has been quite unsuccessful in creating such common interests when they don't naturally exist. Greater U.S. support would not change that - as recent events have amply shown.

9/11 would almost certainly have occurred had Gore been elected president. The several root causes of Islamist terrorism already existed and there is no reason to suppose the situations in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq would have improved in any way had Gore become our President. North Korea had already systematically violated the restraints on nuclear weapons production it had agreed to in the Clinton effort at bribery. French antagonism for the United States goes back forty years at least - no reason to suppose it would be different. Same with Canada and the disaffection that first became manifest under Trudeau. French-German ambitions to lead the new EU as a counterweight to the United States would be unchanged. The UN would still be quite impotent in dealing with issues such as Islamist intolerance and terrorism, North Korean bullying, and all the rest. In short, nothing of significance would have been different, except perhaps that the Taliban and Saddam would likely still be in power.

0 Replies

Bravo---nicely concluded George.

0 Replies

I love that "can do" attitude. Like we "can do"anything we want and get away with it. So endearing.

I dunno, George. I think Gore knows how to read pretty good, would have read the memos from the intelligence folks which passed across his desk in the Oval Office in the months preceding 9/11. Can you give me any reasons why Bush (and this is documented, and links posted here in A2K and elsewhere) did not act?

0 Replies

george

Thank goodness I can be fond of a fellow for reasons of an agreeable and entertaining personality, even while finding his paragraphs sporting compound fractures of fact and reason.

You suggest I make two propositions: the first...

Quote:

The first is that the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are the continuing cause of Islamist terrorism. That without them we would be mostly free of it, and would presumably be solving the Moslem world's dilemma with respect to its own backwardness by other means. One may wish also to throw in U.S. support for Israel here.

the second...

Quote:

that existing and proposed international institutions such as the UN and the ICC would somehow solve such problems as the thug regimes in Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and other areas; expansionist impulses in China with respect to Taiwan, Tibet and the South China Sea; and as well, the terrorism and instability resulting from the Islamist movement in the Moslem world, -- if only the United States would support them more.

As to the first, no, that's not my claim. My claim is that what this administration has done is making matters worse, not better. And that the consequences could, in the worst possibility, last for generations.

Afghanistan and Iraq are different cases. That the Afghan government harbored and supported the group responsible for 9-11 made it a justifiable target. I think it almost certain that a Democrat government would have acted similarly. But not so as regards Iraq. Clearly, that operation arose out of the personalities and philosophies of the neocon community (all documented, not open for dispute) and out of an economic system which has come to rely upon militarism. The Iraq operation was tied to the 'war on terror' as a matter of PR convenience (also no longer available for dispute, unless one is simply a blind fool).

The disparate level of honest and just rationale between these two operations, along with the clear American zest to take Iraq regardless of international consensus or agreements or laws (and the disgusting manner in which the UN and UN inspectors were denigrated and slandered as a part of the PR towards war) is what threw the world community against the US. And that is true likely most of all regarding that part of the world community which was ripe for a 'kill america' message.

Add in the obvious American support for Israel, and the voices coming from administration-friendly nutto christians like Graham (well covered by Al Jazeera) and it becomes hard to imagine any administration doing more things wrong. If Brits and Canadians perceive this administration to be a grave danger, what are Muslims around the world likely to conclude? These policies and actions are bearing the fruit we now see, and which many had predicted - the fomenting of a deeper, wider and far more passionate hatred of the US within the extreme parts of the worldwide Mulim community (not to mention the disdain and lack of cooperation from America's friends).

America didn't cause Muslim unhappiness - that's a claim I've never made. But Osama would have had few scenarios in mind more guaranteed to get what he wanted...vast recruitment, and resolute warriors.

As regards the UN...the US has no realistic alternative but to craft this body and its institutions so that they can provide for future international relations and actions. They cannot survive in the present mode, it is far too expensive, and it makes them THE target for everyone. And China is coming. It is entirely conceivable that in thirty years, or fifty, China will be militarily on par with the US - and economically stronger. If internationalism is forsaken as viable precedent, and if in its place is only 'the strongest rules', then your great grandkids are in serious trouble.

The US could be what it's founders hoped for. But I think you'll fail, because you do not, cannot, realize what you've become. You take too much for granted about who you are, thus how you might go wrong.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process. We should take nothing for granted." Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

I love that "can do" attitude. Like we "can do"anything we want and get away with it. So endearing.

Tart--I was speaking more from the point of view of our predecessors who during the expansion to the west had to dismantle their wagons and lower them piece by piece down a precipice then reassemble them at the bottom, or the float them across a river----or of the GI who in taking any objective just wants to finish the job so he can get back to the wife and kids. It's the indomitable individual human spirit that knows no limit that makes a great nation. Even it's leaders cannot diminish that greatness. You and Blatham are relentless in your quest to make it something ignoble and evil

BTW---thanks for the article on Egyptian Islamists. I don't know how you connected Wahhabism to that article because Wahhabism was never mentioned but nevertheless I'm grateful. The article is timely because it concludes that there are those that were once militants who have pulled back from the edge and have recognized that violence is not in their best interests. While this might be considered a shift in their objective of achieving a true Islamist state it is merely a difference of how to achieve leadership over the Islamic world. While bin Laden and his number two (who is an Egyption) want achieve their objective through violence, Zayat wants to acieve it through accomodation which I agree is a good sign.

I think this article would be a good topic for another thread----why don't you post it?

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Tart--I was speaking more from the point of view of our predecessors who during the expansion to the west had to dismantle their wagons and lower them piece by piece down a precipice then reassemble them at the bottom, or the float them across a river----or of the GI who in taking any objective just wants to finish the job so he can get back to the wife and kids.

More John Wayne as history. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

It's the indomitable individual human spirit that knows no limit that makes a great nation.

Is it? Then why are you in favour of those who instead celebrate the profit margin and personal power, worship at the altar of warfare, and are willing to sacrifice you and your family in an instant if it proves politically feasable?

Quote:

Even it's leaders cannot diminish that greatness.

Oh really?

Quote:

You and Blatham are relentless in your quest to make it something ignoble and evil

Strange, I've never seen Blatham or Tartarin saying US citizens should be shot as traitors, or that war is justified any time the US so wills it. It seems you are guilty of what you accuse others of, percy.

Quote:

BTW---thanks for the article on Egyptian Islamists. I don't know how you connected Wahhabism to that article because Wahhabism was never mentioned but nevertheless I'm grateful.

Strange, I read the same article and its applicability to the Wahabbists was quite plain. Do you read?

Quote:

The article is timely because it concludes that there are those that were once militants who have pulled back from the edge and have recognized that violence is not in their best interests.

Too bad no one has taught this lesson to teh Americans.

Quote:

While this might be considered a shift in their objective of achieving a true Islamist state it is merely a difference of how to achieve leadership over the Islamic world.

Actually, it has more to do with the disputational nature of Islam.

Quote:

While bin Laden and his number two (who is an Egyption) want achieve their objective through violence, Zayat wants to acieve it through accomodation which I agree is a good sign.

So only the US is justified in using force whenever it feels like, eh percy?

0 Replies

Quote:

You and Blatham are relentless in your quest to make it something ignoble and evil

Perc

You do continue to gloss over what I do say about the positives (outweigh the negatives). When one reads of a tragic figure, it is the greatness in them, or the potential they possess, which makes their fall a tragedy. There was no more intelligent, imaginative, or brave man in all of Thebes than Oedipus. But he refused advice, for he could not perceive his own flaw.

And on a personal note to you...let me say that I truly enjoy having you about, old friend, and greatly admire the carefulness and temperance of your posts these days.

0 Replies

Hobit

I'm going to wait until everyone has had ample opportunity to view your hate slobbering, venom laden diatribe before I reply.

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know