Wacks the political Bee's Nest [Archive] - Page 5 - Commanders Post at The Warpath

SmootSmack

07-22-2004, 01:38 AM

I was trying to avoid chiming in on this political debate, but I might as well now. So allow me to take a minute of your time with a lengthy diatribe. Then hopefully we can get back to discussing the Redskins

The one thing that always strikes me about protests against the U.S. that occur in the U.S. is that, in a backhanded way, they are the greatest compliment to the country. It was a bit hard under Saddam to gather en masse in Baghdad and protest against the government there. Well, you could, but it would be your last protest for sure. So, if we have these frustrations in our gut over "war," "injustice," "inequality," "children," "famine," "poverty," and "weapons of mass destruction" etc., we can only direct them at democratic governments b/c we would be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed if we direct them only at the totalitarian ones. Strangely then, we begin to direct them only at the democratic ones, as if they are the problem. Some blame the U.S. and Britain for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the demise of the United Nations, and the impoverished condition of the people of Iraq. It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't believe history can show a war between two democratic nations. Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes.

Regarding the United Nations, its recent actions have been the highlight of its history, not its demise. The idea of the UN, after all, was that it be relevant. But for the entire decade of the '90s it was a joke, completely turning a blind eye to the flouting of its resolutions. Somehow the presumptions have been turned upside down here. Let's remember that 1. Iraq invaded another country and then 2. the UN issued resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm as a condition for the cessation of military conflict because of what it had done. That's the starting point. The world doesn't have to "prove" Iraq has WMD; that's been decided already. Rather, Iraq is the one that had to prove that it no longer does. So what was wrong with seeking to enforce that? With respect to the people of Iraq, whether or not foreign revenues flow in is irrelevant if there is a domestic power structure that monopolizes those revenues. That is not the world community's fault; that's the fault of Iraq's leadership under Saddam. The question of whether the world community is to blame depends on how it responds to this situation. All the guilt-cleansing painful anguish about whether this should be the decade of dialogue and understanding is nonsense if, when it comes down to it, the world does not stand up for true human rights when the going gets tough. It is tempting to take the position of "let the inspectors continue to do their work" because it evokes a feeling that we are "doing something," but does so without really doing anything difficult. There had already been a decade of hide and seek with the inspectors. Enough.

In 1987, it became fashionable to talk about the "decline of America." In fact, there was a book that came out that year that said that the U.S. downfall would be caused by "imperial overstretch." The book was way wrong at the time as only two years later the Wall came down, the USSR vanished, and was ushered in a decade of democracy and free markets, the ultimate tribute to U.S. power and U.S. ideals. But that era ended in September 2001. Instead, it is now that the U.S. finds itself in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Korea, in Indonesia, all over the board. The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed. So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves. Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department.

But that brings me to the unavoidable conclusion which is that, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well cozy up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it be simpler certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is. But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot currently on trial in a docket in the Hague.

In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and when it was decided by a court that the new guy was going to take over, the assistant to the old guy, who lost, went on TV to ask that everyone support him. Not a drop of blood was shed. In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song. The next day, I walked through the night of the downtown past armed soldiers, many of whom wished me a good evening and none of whom told me -- or forced me -- to go home. Only in America. As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it.


	Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot > Wacks the political Bee's Nest Log in Wacks the political Bee's Nest Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 offiss 07-22-2004, 12:26 AM offiss, sorry to say but you are wasting your time. I agree with you 100% and I can't understand for the life of me how these other Americans can think so different then I do. But, our Country has been all the better with up until now with MANY opinions. peace a God bless this great Nation. mike Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Daseal 07-22-2004, 12:38 AM Wasn't the serin gas in tiny dosses within a University used for University purposes? Or was that the tiny bit of serin gas found on a farm that they used for something on the farm. Either way it was far from enough to do any sort of real damage. watching as 3000 people die because someone just doesn't like us Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument? Clinton may have said he thought Saddam could be a threat, but he sure as hell didn't reach out and attack him on falacies did he? I'd also like to see a quote where Clinton calls Saddam "A Threat to America." Thanks. That Guy 07-22-2004, 01:25 AM bergman (is that his name?) ran off with them ;) but seriously, i do believe he said that, but i do blame clinton for treating the military poorly and he passivity when american targets were attacked... not that that has anything to do with iraq. That Guy 07-22-2004, 01:26 AM Couldn't Iraqi citizens make the exact same argument? probably, but since they don't vote... </cynicism> SmootSmack 07-22-2004, 01:38 AM I was trying to avoid chiming in on this political debate, but I might as well now. So allow me to take a minute of your time with a lengthy diatribe. Then hopefully we can get back to discussing the Redskins The one thing that always strikes me about protests against the U.S. that occur in the U.S. is that, in a backhanded way, they are the greatest compliment to the country. It was a bit hard under Saddam to gather en masse in Baghdad and protest against the government there. Well, you could, but it would be your last protest for sure. So, if we have these frustrations in our gut over "war," "injustice," "inequality," "children," "famine," "poverty," and "weapons of mass destruction" etc., we can only direct them at democratic governments b/c we would be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed if we direct them only at the totalitarian ones. Strangely then, we begin to direct them only at the democratic ones, as if they are the problem. Some blame the U.S. and Britain for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the demise of the United Nations, and the impoverished condition of the people of Iraq. It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't believe history can show a war between two democratic nations. Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes. Regarding the United Nations, its recent actions have been the highlight of its history, not its demise. The idea of the UN, after all, was that it be relevant. But for the entire decade of the '90s it was a joke, completely turning a blind eye to the flouting of its resolutions. Somehow the presumptions have been turned upside down here. Let's remember that 1. Iraq invaded another country and then 2. the UN issued resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm as a condition for the cessation of military conflict because of what it had done. That's the starting point. The world doesn't have to "prove" Iraq has WMD; that's been decided already. Rather, Iraq is the one that had to prove that it no longer does. So what was wrong with seeking to enforce that? With respect to the people of Iraq, whether or not foreign revenues flow in is irrelevant if there is a domestic power structure that monopolizes those revenues. That is not the world community's fault; that's the fault of Iraq's leadership under Saddam. The question of whether the world community is to blame depends on how it responds to this situation. All the guilt-cleansing painful anguish about whether this should be the decade of dialogue and understanding is nonsense if, when it comes down to it, the world does not stand up for true human rights when the going gets tough. It is tempting to take the position of "let the inspectors continue to do their work" because it evokes a feeling that we are "doing something," but does so without really doing anything difficult. There had already been a decade of hide and seek with the inspectors. Enough. In 1987, it became fashionable to talk about the "decline of America." In fact, there was a book that came out that year that said that the U.S. downfall would be caused by "imperial overstretch." The book was way wrong at the time as only two years later the Wall came down, the USSR vanished, and was ushered in a decade of democracy and free markets, the ultimate tribute to U.S. power and U.S. ideals. But that era ended in September 2001. Instead, it is now that the U.S. finds itself in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Korea, in Indonesia, all over the board. The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed. So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves. Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department. But that brings me to the unavoidable conclusion which is that, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well cozy up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it be simpler certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is. But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot currently on trial in a docket in the Hague. In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and when it was decided by a court that the new guy was going to take over, the assistant to the old guy, who lost, went on TV to ask that everyone support him. Not a drop of blood was shed. In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song. The next day, I walked through the night of the downtown past armed soldiers, many of whom wished me a good evening and none of whom told me -- or forced me -- to go home. Only in America. As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it. SmootSmack 07-22-2004, 01:45 AM Bipartisan laughs: http://www.jibjab.com/ (did someone post this already? I've lost track) NY_Skinsfan 07-22-2004, 01:49 AM ok...I can't take it anymore, Hey SBF, Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker. That Guy 07-22-2004, 02:58 AM thanks smoot for an insightful essay ;) I'm not sure i'm 100% up on the UN, after seeing France and Russia decide not to help (which is fine, but then) finding out days later they'd been buying oil from Iraq and selling them military gear regardless of the sanctions... and then hear representatives from those countries complain that the UN should be able to control US policy... I think jibjab has been posted, its pretty funny though and worth seeing again :) Sammy Baugh Fan 07-22-2004, 08:25 AM ok...I can't take it anymore, Hey SBF, Not to start anything but "dewd" means Dedicated Electronic Warfare Display (look it up)....I think you mean "dude." If we are all trying to represent educated people in discussions such as this one...let's at least use a spell checker. Thanks for the personal attack but I'll spell "dude" the way I want. Have a great day dewd. peace mike illdefined 07-22-2004, 09:39 AM Agreed, it does get tiresome trying to convince people step's are being taken for thier own good, you have to many people out there gladly drinking the kool aid, oh well, I said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. blindly listening to 'the leader' in spite the fact he's clearly been PROVEN WRONG, is way more akin to drinking poisonous kool-aid without thinking. what knowledge has Bush led us to?