i wound venture that it goes back to President Polk using a border conflict with mexico so that he could take the entire southwest.
PDiddie
You correctly point to the dangerous blindness that arises from the myths of American exceptionalism. Given an administration such as this one - deeply agressive, so evidently driven by self-interest, and so clearly deceitful, it seems no surprise at all that the great majority of the rest of the world perceives the US now as a serious problem.
One of the points Keisling made in his interview last night with Moyers was how unusual it is that ANY foreign election would be driven mainly by anti-American sentiment, yet that in the last short while, the elections in FOUR NATIONS (Germany, Brazil, Turkey and South Korea) have each been so driven. And this so soon after the world-wide support evidenced post 9-11.
Tartarin
My bones are frail and have little meat on them. Was it my remark about your beehive hairdo?
In addition to lumping together a collection of anti-American states with different goals and capabilities into a cute war-marketing slogan, the Bush administration has used "the war on terror" to obscure the differences between al-Qaeda, a transnational Muslim terrorist group with members from many nations that targets the United States and Western European countries, and Hamas and Hezbollah, militant groups targeting Israel.
If Hamas and Hezbollah are treated as America's enemies, even though their quarrel is not with the United States, why aren't the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque separatists in Spain, Chechens in Russia and Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka part of America's "war on terror," too?
"The War On Terror" is simply the creation of the manifesto of the People of the New American Century (of which Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney are contributors): 'total war'. Like the "War on Drugs", it can never be won, so, in effect, we will always be fighting. The United States (and the rest of the world, if it has any interest in self-preservation) will forever be on alert; on a war footing.
This has the added benefit of giving the authoritarians the excuse they need to crack down on dissidents (i.e. their political opponents as well as anyone else who happens to disagree with them).
How many times lately have we heard that, in times of war, we have to sacrifice certain liberties. And sadly, how many citizens have bought in.
The backlash to the comments of Natalie Maines, the Dixie Chicks singer who criticized Bush only to be flamed by her fan base into an apology, is just today's evidence that far too many Americans no longer accept the privilege of the exercise of free speech as valuable if they happen to disagree with the words being spoken.
That's a good one, PDiddie -- a particularly good post...
Too cute by half not to post...
Quote:Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA
If there are so many guns in Iraq, why is it still a dictatorship?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, March 14, 2003, at 1:56 PM PT
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's
you get the idea.
The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to
[email protected]) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.
...with apologies to she-knows-who.
Blatham,
I would like to print out the original source. Could you backtrack and provide the URL?
Thanks, Blatham, I got it. Needed it to needle significant others' NRA devotion.
roger, the only thing I seem to remember is that the only two limits on Iraqi missiles is range (90 miles) and warhead capability. I'm sure there are some others - But I basically understand the Scud is less than 90 miles, but from the results I heard - who would want one anyway. They seem to be able to target a direction, ie, N-S-E-W and maybe NE,NW,SE,SW; but, that's about all.
I guess when it is all boiled down, my response to sumac is that Iraq is allowed missiles-scud being one of them-as long as they are within constraints.
There has always been a deep irony in the fact that we are ordering Saddam to disarm while we are insisting that, come what may, we will invade. I'm sure this piece of magic irrealism isn't lost on the rest of the world...
Tartarin, it's another bullying tactic. I'm sure the Bush Administration is positive no one else sees it!
Great picture ul, Guernica 2003
ul, One picture worth a thousand words. Thx, c.i.
Just an observation here ... in it's 50 + Year history, The UN has mounted a coalition of forces charged with military intervention (war), exactly twice ... Once regarding Korea, once regarding Iraq. I would say the results, as evidenced by the current situations regarding Korea and Iraq rather clearly demonstrate the failure of The UN approach. Nothing was solved by either intervention, the problems were merely "Forward-Shifted", and neither problem can be kicked much further into the future. It is time to deal with these problems. They will not "Go Away" by themselves, no matter how fervently we may hope they might.
The UN may do OK with Disaster, Famine and Pestillence, but it don't do War well at all. When it comes to war, The UN has twice demonstrated it is not equal to the task of resolving the issues which led to war in the first place. Personally, I look at the current brouhaha as The UN's third strike. An arranged and disputed ceasefire is not a conclusion to a war, it is merely a pause in the program. In Iraq and Korea, The Pause Button has been released, and the tapes are playing again. Its time to use The Eject Button, IMHO. The UN seems to me to be fixated on pressing "Replay". I'm tired of the show.
Relying on action from an entity which historically has proven itself incapable of effective action is just plain silly. But then, neither politics nor diplomacy are notably free of silliness.
timber
Kara wrote:Do the manipulated ones "get" the link that is not there?
Yes, Kara, everyone who has considered the current situation and come to a conclusion different than yours is being "manipulated". We're also too stupid, ignorant, and inbred to recognize it.
Excellent observation, Timber.
Timber -- I think your response also has to do with "American impatience." Many countries really do think "jaw jaw" is better than "war war" and you know where my sympathies lie! Don't you think it's better, as we move towards more and more lethal weaponry and greater social unrest, to do everything we can to prevent outright conflict, no matter how tedious the process is?
timber, Okay, so everything you say is true. What gives the US the right to attack Iraq? Just because we are the most powerful military in the world? What gives the US the right to kill innocent Iraqi's? To bring democracy to Iraq and the region? Because Saddam is a threat to the region and to the US. How? He hasn't attacked anybody in twelve years! If he does attack, don't you think the world community will do something? Isn't that the correct way to keep peace in the world? If the argument is that Saddam tortures his people, there are plenty of tyrants in this world that does the same thing. Are we going to attack them next? By what authority? c.i.
(George Soros, no petty capitalist he, writes in The Financial Times Online: )
With US and British troops poised to invade Iraq, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly opposed. Yet Saddam Hussein is generally seen as a tyrant who must be disarmed and the United Nations Security Council has unanimously demanded that he disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.
What has gone wrong?
Iraq is the first instance in which the Bush doctrine is being applied and it is provoking an allergic reaction. The doctrine is built on two pillars: first, the US will do everything in its power to maintain unquestioned military supremacy; second, it arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. These pillars support two classes of sovereignty: American sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine.
This is reminiscent of George Orwell's
Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Bush's Inflated Sense of Supremacy
