Keeping my mouth shut re Georgia
Bookworm on Aug 13 2008 at 9:17 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Russia
“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
You’ve probably noticed that I’ve said nothing about Russia invading Georgia. This is, in part, because the exigencies of the past week have deprived me of time to read in detail about it. I only know headlines and, since I have absolutely no background in the geography or the conflict, this means I’m abysmally ignorant.
The silence is also because, to the extent I have managed to grasp what’s going on out there, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion, or anything that I feel I want to voice personally despite the fact that so many others are saying the same thing. Yes, Putin is a totalitarian dictator, but we’ve known that about him for a long time, and many of us have just been sitting here waiting to see how is old KGB attitudes end up merging with his megalomaniac traits. Yes, this is all about oil. Yes, this represents a very dangerous trend, although it’s as unclear now as it was during the Cold War whether Russia has the ability to back up its aggressive initiatives. It’s easy to go in with the remaining guns from your former glory and squash a teeny little Republic. It’s harder to maintain any long campaigns. And yes, McCain showed leadership abilities, with Obama showing, first, ignorance (which is excusable in me, but not in him) and, second, the ability to follow McCain’s lead.
And yes, I’ve run out of echoing other, wiser people on the terrible tragedy, at the hands of a gross, bullying dictatorship, that is playing out in Georgia.
Email This Post To A Friend
In every war of aggression, the aggressor acts out the part of the aggrieved, complaining bitterly about the injustices done, and the fact that there was no remaining choice available. The true test is what occurs in the aftermath of the War.
You will be able to look at Iraq post-Bush, once this war is completely done, to judge the results of our War. I suspect you will see dramatic benefits. (This is all relevant ONLY to the extent that you consider the Iraq War to be a war of US aggression.)
There are many more relevant other wars of aggression where the aftermath is outrageously ugly. For all their bitter complaining, the aggressors had one goal: The rape and brutalization of a prey. In every case where their war of aggression succeeded, the attacked country was to pay bitterly in blood and tears for decades.
A side note that had me laughing: Germany agreed with Stalin to partition Eastern Europe and launched the Nazi invasion into Poland in 1939, stating bitterly that this was a defensive war against Poland and Britain and they had no choice. Poland executed a maneuver to send its best ships away to England for protection. How was France involved in this? To wit:
On August 30, the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing Operation Peking. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły announced the mobilization of Polish troops. However, he was pressured into revoking the order by the French, who apparently still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, failing to realize that the Germans were fully mobilized and concentrated at the Polish border.
Heh. The more things change the more they stay the same.
“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” —General George S. Patton
“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.” —Norman Schwartzkopf
“We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.” —Marge Simpson
“As far as I’m concerned, war always means failure.” —Jacques Chirac, President of France
“As far as France is concerned, you’re right.” —Rush Limbaugh
“The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee.” —Regis Philbin
An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French…. Raise both hands if you are French.
Q: Why do French naval ships have glass bottoms?
A: To see all their other ships.
A man askes his companion, “What’s the most common French expression”? His friend scratches his head, shrugs his shoulders and replies, “I give up!”
Q: Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?
A: So the Germans could march in the shade.
(Yes, I know, this is very ungrateful, considering we couldn’t have beat the British in 1776-1781 without the help of the French Navy… Just remember, they didn’t do it for us; We were a minor skirmish in their world war and splitting the Colonies from Great Britain was to France’s great advantage; so tell me again why I should owe gratitude?)
Here’s an interesting perspective…
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9073
Love the “French” lines…!
Not sure the French military deserves the bad name, but like soldiers everywhere, they’re not responsible for their politicians…!
Excellent link, suek! (and I know that the French military jokes are really about their long-standing feckless political leadership, but yes, what fun anyway!)
It’s hard to say how this plays out in the long run, not only for Georgia but for other small countries in the region.
A snarling Russia will provide a very interesting months-long national security debate between McCain and Obama. Should McCain be smart enough to take it on.
Obama will be in a box; the vast majority of his support - his far-left constituency - will not accept any worthwhile strong statements, and the rest of the American people won’t accept the spineless, craven, hopelessly weak tone of his initial remarks. It may get very interesting.
It all goes back to the advertisement Hillary Clinton ran: who do you want in WH answering the phone @ 3 AM?
It’s hard for me to imagine the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia……but we apparently bear some responsibility for the position we’re in. I’ve seen a couple of pieces that seem to establish pretty clearly that none of this was, or should have been, a surprise. We joined Europe in either ignoring, or not responding to, a whole series of Russian statements and actions, back when the stakes were low and the chances of avoiding this mess were higher.
Earl: read Spengler’s take on Georgia from Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag01.html
” Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:”in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.. . . “
I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. Afghanistan was also a coalition activity. This was not one-on-one imperialism, no matter how much people wish it was.
Hey Ozzie, people don’t use violence or threat of violence against each other in your nation, either. That is only allowed by the government, since the government has limitations put on them by the people.
The only one who is allowed to invade nations are nations like America. But you aren’t like America, Oz. You don’t follow a set of principles which you just won’t back down from. America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.
Btw, do not give the UN any legitimacy, for they are the source of much terror and crime in this world. They did not authorize the US invasion of Iraq and thank God for that.
America is not good or bad because the Un said so.
I dare say that you lack any belief you would be willing to defend if it took invading another country, Oz.
I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. — Book
Yes, and the U.N, didnt authorize war, the U.S was caught “bugging” Security Council Members and whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for. From the Baltimore Sun in 2004:
But the record shows that early last year, the United States brought the full force of its powerful economy to bear on prospective military allies, offering more than $4 billion in an unsuccessful attempt to gain the allegiance of Turkey and helping to negotiate Poland’s $3.5 billion purchase of 48 F-16 fighter planes from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Polish deal also included more than $6 billion in U.S. business investment that Lockheed promised to channel into Poland, an economic “offset” that caused Polish officials to call the purchase “the deal of the century.”
Of course , we wont know for YEARS the extent to which colaition members were bribed.
For an eye-opening account of the way things typically work, I suggest the book, Legacy of Ashes.
America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.- Ymar
Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.
The story Americans are told vs the truth that eventually emerges are always very different.
America is not good or bad because the Un said so- Ymar.
Well, Ymar. The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.
They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.
Georgia has been in the news for quite some time.
From 2002:
Deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces to the Caucasus state of Georgia would help enforce a Washington pipeline policy aimed at neutralizing Russian influence in oil-rich Central Asia. . . .
The Russian campaign served to maintain Russian control of all pipelines bringing oil and gas out of the Caspian basin. It seems clear that in the current decade the Bush administration is willing to send troops, from Georgia to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, to neutralize Russian influence. The United States has already stationed 1,000 troops in Uzbekistan, and 300 close to the Chinese border in Kyrgyzstan, with more scheduled to arrive. . .
Since the collapse in 1998 of California oil company Unocal’s efforts to establish a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, the focus of U.S. government strategy has been on a proposed gas pipeline — a project of the Pipeline Solutions Group, a U.S.-led consortium of oil companies — to be built across the Caspian, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Enron, with U.S. government money, conducted a feasibility study for this pipeline.
The backup of U.S. pipeline politics with military support began under President Clinton, but received a boost with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to the region last December. . ”
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=812
>>The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.>>
If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US?
Ozzie is doing the same old tired left-wing dance moves here. I see it over and over, among my very liberal friends.
They criticize the United States, sometimes for legitimate reasons. Then, when confronted by behaviors of other countries that is far, far worse than our behavior, they become silent, or they amp up their criticisms of the USA.
When you ask them why, they offer this: “I am only interested in the behavior of my own country. I cannot control the behavior of other countries. Besides, the behavior of other countries should not be used as an excuse for my country’s behavior.”
Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”
This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.
Yes, the Unocal dealings are shifty and not up to our ideals. However, in the meantime, China is sponsoring the Darfur genocide solely for its own long-term oil interests. You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special?
In reality, he should be criticizing the USA and China, both. He is ethically required to identify China as, by far, with no real comparison, the worst of the two. Then perhaps a lament on how difficult it is to change China would be in order; and then, finally, a resolution to AT LEAST stop the lesser infractions by the USA, as something that he can accomplish. In this way he would acknowledge the truth of world affairs while doing what he could to fix our own mistakes.
But no. The Ozzies of the world simply heap abuse on the USA and remain completely silent about the worse activities of others.
- Your son gets into a fight at school and breaks another boy’s arm.
- Your neighbor’s son gets into a fight at school and knifes the other boy repeatedly, who then is in emergency care for a week.
- Ozzie, the principal, suspends your son and puts him in alternative school, while never punishing the other boy. On the local news, he spends five minutes haranguing your son and your parenting, remaining silent about the other boy.
- Why does he do this? Because you LISTEN and are willing to take action, while the neighbor parent refuses to listen to him, threatens to sue, ignores him and belittles him. Ozzie would rather attack you.
Perhaps my analogy is unfair, but I find it instructive. It’s not fair for me to identify Ozzie so closely with this hypothetical principal, because in truth the principal is exhibiting extreme ethical cowardice. But to me, that is the nature of these repeated attacks on the USA that do not also involve a willingness to criticize others AND to identify which behaviors are worse.
If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US? - suek
My problem isnt with the U.S. It’s with the propaganda. And the people who blindly believe and/or peddle it.
I accept that the U.S and Russia are in a battle over control of natural resources.
I don’t accept the notion that the U.S is the world’s sole fireman ready to put out fires.
A couple favortie quotes:
“The enormous gap between what U.S. leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.” — Michael Parenti
The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know. ~ Harry S Truman
You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special? - Mike
Actually, no. I don’t blame the U.S for Darfur. I have not read anything that suggests that the U.S is behind the genocide there.
And you’ll not hear me defending China nor Russia either.
I’m not criticizing Unocal’s dealings, either. It’s the same ‘ol, same ‘ol, as far as I can see.
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
From the Chicago Tribune in March, 2002:
“The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.
For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.
In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers.”
This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.- Mike
I love the country. But I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis, which Democrats condone under Democratic presidents and Republicans condone under Republican presidents and it all comes down to some “Left vs Right’ nonsense when the lies continue regardless which part holds power.
The history of what REALLY happened vs what Americans were told was happening is always fascinating/amazing/scary to me.
I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)
But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.
Had to throw this into the mix. Language warning.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/270650.php#270650
>>I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis>>
Governments lie. _All_ governments. Is it bad? I don’t know…there are people out there who want to hurt us. Lying is a form of camoflage - a form of protection from attackers. But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people - the enemy _listens_, you know.
Add to that the fact that there are people in government who have their own secret agendas…and ones that they may succeed in accomplishing regardless of the good of the country because they have acquired the power and means to do so. In spite of your preference for no evaluation of “good and bad”, there _are_ good and bad people. And the government is made up of people - good and bad. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
What you want is perfect people….guess what…they don’t exist.
But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people - the enemy _listens_, you know.- Suek
I’d like for the American government to stop doing horrendous things and then lying about it, yes.
And I’d like for the American people to stop being so damn gullible.
But that’s not going to happen.
At least for now, Americans who WANT to know what happened in 1953 or 1963 or 1973 can find out. Most dont want to, though. And they dont believe you if you try to tell them about this coup or that coup and don’t believe that it affects anything today.
There are no perfect people. But there are consequences for actions. And the sins of the father will be visited upon the children. Some children will recite happy, fluffy stories and deem it the truth, while others will try to find the actual truth.
As for Georgia? That will take a while.
In the meantime, those of us who were reading about Unocal and pipelines and the potential for friction between the U.S and Russia were laughed at by those who prefered to believe that Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw beauty in his soul.
I was surprised to read this as I thought the issue of Kosovo had been settled:
This does add some perspective to the situation in Georgia. As much as the left would like to use Iraq as a defense for Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the analogy is closer to our support of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.
I think we do know that Russia’s move into Georgia was planned well in advance of the latest “oppression” of the Ossetians by Georgia.
Here is an interesting article written in 2006 that might add context.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-caucasus/south_ossetia_4100.jsp
Seems like Russian meddling to me.
But at the core it seems we’re struggling to develop a coherent justification for the use of force whether it be the US in Iraq, or Russia in Georgia, or NATO in Serbia. I’ve read here and at other blogs a defense or refutation of these justifications. We seem to be uneasy endorsing the concept that strategic power and self interest is all that is necessary. We wish for a more moral philosophical argument, when there may be none. These questions will always be colored by our core beliefs.
The articles that Ozzie cites includes this statement: “These elites increase oppression while flaunting their Mercedes” referring to the US corporate investments. Well, one man’s flaunting is another man’s reward for entrepreneurship.
We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism. One is “good” and the other “evil” depending on core belief.
Ozzie cites Michael Parenti and references the New America Media website.
Who is Michael Parenti? According to his web site…
He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts.
“Michael Parenti is a towering prophetic voice in American life. We need him now more than ever.” — Cornel West
“Here at home and throughout the world people are fighting back against the forces of wealth, privilege, and militarism — some because they have no choice, others because they would choose no other course but the one that leads to peace and justice.” — Michael Parenti
Book by Michael Parenti:
Democracy For The Few, 8th Ed.
DEMOCRACY FOR THE FEW is a penetrating interpretation of the American political system. It focuses both on the formal institutions of government as well as the broad configurations of power, wealth, and class: how the political system is used and controlled, for whose benefit and at whose cost. A comprehensive and powerful opus for student and layperson alike.
From an article– The Stolen Presidential Elections by Michael Parenti
You will only cite Michael Parenti as an authority if you believe that Bush stole the election from both Gore and Kerry and that American democracy is only an illusion.
From Pipeline Politics - Oil Behind Plan for U.S. Troops in Georgia, 2002
We seem to be headed down a road that may lead to a balkanization of most countries, absent superior strategic power. If, in fact, any set of people occupying a particular location, can declare independence then the North’s action against the South was illegal 150 years ago and at some point in the future, the Southwest will declare it’s independence from the US and allegiance to the home country. I think we can guess what side Ozzie will be on.
You can declare independence, but you better have the power to enforce it.
By the way, Ozzie, was NATO justified in the war against Serbia?
We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism.” — Brian E.
Ah. But that’s not what’s happening between Georgia, Russia and the U.S. Russia is embracing capitalism, too
From the Christian Science Monitor, in 2002:
Terror war and oil expand US sphere of influence
GIs build bases on Russia’s energy-rich flank
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
“. . . Firmly in the Russian and later Soviet sphere of influence since Napoleon’s day, these strategic regions, along with their Middle Eastern ramparts to the south, are now home to 60,000 American troops.
Some of these soldiers are building what appear to be long-term bases at remote Central Asian outposts, raising critical questions about America’s future role.
One aim is the containment of Islamic extremism, a goal shared by Russia on its vulnerable southern flank. Looking to challenge OPEC leader Saudi Arabia in the oil markets, Russia is also worried about protecting its growing economic interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which are crisscrossed by oil and gas pipelines – and potentially lucrative new routes.
But the new nearness of America is triggering heated debate in Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin, by permitting US deployments, is being widely blamed for “losing” Central Asia and succumbing to a new American imperialism.. . .
“The Russians have every reason to be worried” about US intentions in their “soft underbelly,” says Thomas Stauffer, an energy strategist and former Harvard professor in Washington. “The only geopolitical logic I can see [to long-term US moves],” Stauffer adds, “is that we want to get a certain amount of space on the checkerboard, with which we can negotiate with the Russians.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html
From Ozzie’s link:
This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed.
“While the US may have grand imperial designs” is I would submit engaging in fantasy or wishful thinking, depending on one’s worldview.
I can accept the theory that our strategic interests include the free flow of oil to world markets. Here our interests align with most of the industrialized world. We’ve seen from the recent oil price spike, that there is an oil price that would trigger real oil wars and the potential collapse of the world economy. Unfortunately the US would not be immune to that collapse.
I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow. A scenario in which Saudi oil production is curtailed or a host of lesser catastrophe’s occur requires our proactive approach to potential new sources, or stabilizing other potential disruptions.
I would argue that oil company interests and our national security interests are aligned and am not overly concerned that Exxon may profit from this free flow of oil. We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.
I read theories alluding to “payback” by the Russians for our intervention in Serbia, but I think the analysis that puts the invasion of Georgia more as an example to others that desire to tack West as probably correct.
While the world defends its actions against Serbia raised in the International Court of Justice, it will be used to justify Russian actions to stop the genocide by Georgia against the hapless Ossetians in some minds (whether or not this occurred).
Will it lead to the coercian of the West to accept Russian authority in South Ossetia and possibly Georgia?
This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed. — Brian
And I’d argue that primary objectives usually remain hidden for decades.
“I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow.. . . We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.
” — Brian
Yes, We’ve seen it that way since 1953 or so, when we waged our first coup to insure that America and Britian controlled the flow of oil in Iran. Honestly, if you get a chance to pick up “Legacy of Ashes” and you’ll also see how populations had to be supressed and killed to insure American supremacy.
(If people are stupid enough to be born near oil, then they should expect to be maimed and killed, no?)
In Dafur, China is guilty, so it’s acceptable to be horrified at that’s happening there.
Thanks for the green light on Darfur. I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.
I’m not here to defend every action of the US in history, but I believe your scenario misses a key point. The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it. Mosadeq promoted the nationalization of the Oil Industry from Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and while we can argue that they were offered a reasonable settlement, it would have a ripple effect in other countries.
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/nazis1/index.htm
The fact that the Shah was no improvement is regrettable.
I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.- Zhombre
Well, Zhombre. if you tell people you are horrified by American-led coups in Iran in 1953 or in Iraq in 1963 or in Chile in 1973, some get offensive.
Atrocities , shmytrocities….
The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it.- Brian
It was sold to Eisnenhower that way, tis true.
But the declassified documents are pretty damning.
The U.S. government is populated by some pretty scary folks.
Another interesting tidbit from the Eisenhower era:
The president noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him, “we should do what was necessary even if the result was to change the American way of life. We could lick the whole world… if we were willing to adopt the system of Adolph Hitler.” — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as quoted in the National Security Council declassified minutes of a meeting in Fall 1953, and as published in “Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner, page 75.
Boy, aren’t we glad Eisenhower didn’t take him up on the offer.
I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.
Are you claiming that America and the former Soviet Union are morally equivalent?
http://www.fortfreedom.org/h10.htm
]]]] Twentieth Century Killed, by Cause [[[[[[[
CAUSE TOTALS AVERAGES
(in millions) (per 100,000 population)
—————-
Government 119.4 349
Communist 95.2 477
Other non-free 20.3 495
Partially free 3.1 48
Free 0.8 22
—————-
War 35.7 22
International 29.7 17
Civil 6.0 26
—————-
Using these conservative estimates, I would take my chances siding with American interests, and I have no problem defending its aims, warts and all. 95 million deaths caused by Communist governments, 800,000 by Free governments.
Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens.
What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.
Oz is claiming that the US and the Soviets are both corrupted by power and like Republicans and Democrats, aren’t really different or going anywhere positive.
What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.
Why would evil freely allow the good to destroy their plans? They have saboteurs ready to wreck it. Both inside and outside Western civilization.
They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.
Which is rather the problem. A world of moral equivalency or a viewpoint that does not realize and accept that people see their actions as good and other people’s actions as evil, thus requiring an ethical system, not just a moral one, is a world view that cannot produce any human progress.
Where will you go by talking about issues independent of the good it will do people and the harm it will cause?
The real issue has always been, will you back Georgia or will you back Russia, Oz. Or will you just sit on the sidelines and try to be neutral.
whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for
See, you turned an alliance of mutual interests into some kind of mercenary or monetary exchange, like citizens, individuals, mobsters, and gang members do all the time in the world.
Money is part of the Great Games played by the Great Powers, but what is at stake is life and liberty, not money.
Georgians know this very well by now, but you don’t. And there’s a reason for that.
Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.
See, you have no idea or intention of making the world a better place or working with those who have the power to do so to use it wisely and constructively. All you want to do is to try to hamstring the efforts of those actually making an attempt.
Oz’s position is also rather schizophrenic in some cases. The US is supposed to be an exploiter, but then suddenly we’re bribing nations to make them our allies.
Man, the US Imperialism is so stingy they will exploit other people’s resources by giving them money and military hardware.
This is what happens when you get that morally relativistic and nihilist viewpoint going on.
Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens. - Brian
And I’m telling you that we didnt. In fact, in many cases, we propped up brutal dictatorships.
This book takes a even-handed, just-the-facts approach, http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm though the author’s bias shines though occassionally (For example, his distaste for the Kennedys makes it seem as if JFK approved Operation Northwoods, when, in fact, though all Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan to kill Americans and blame Cuba, the Kennedy administration said No No No).
He also just briefly mentions the Dr. Frank Olson case, without addressing any of the latest findings.
I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.- Brian
My point is that believing in warm and fuzzy mythology is dangerous. And there is often a vast difference between what we’re told and what is actually occurring.
Here’s another interesting disclosure, from the Kennedy era:
In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
>>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>
That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong.
>>The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff>>
Of course. The military - or whoever the appropriate body is - is given a specific task. Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. Somehow. After the plans are devised, the decision makers are the ones who decide. That’s _their_ job. There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form - it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.
I’m hustling off to another carpool in a minute, so I just want to address one point. It’s true that the US (especially acting through the CIA), got into bed with or fomented some horrible dictatorships. However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world.
Vast wars such as the Cold War, which take place globally and over decades, are always going to result in bad decisions and regrettable allies. However, one fights the wars one has and, just as in the heat of battle in a hot war, during the long-drawn out battles of the cold war, one makes uneasy but necessary alliances, and one makes mistakes.
>>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>
That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong. - suek
All Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan, Suek. It was A-OK with them, but not with McNamarra.
“Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. ” -suek
Yes, the plan was to find a reason to go to war with Cuba.
Seymour Hersh just reported on Bush Adminstration “Ideas” to provoke war with Iran. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29BtzfSz0o
Yet, many Americans still believe that the U.S. seeks to avoid war at all cost, based only upon the myths they’ve been told since birth.
You can’t fight that kind of indoctrination… It’s kind of like trying to reason with someone who believes that the Kennedy era was “Camelot.”
“There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form - it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.” — suek
The history of ideas that have been implemented has been similarly immoral and/or amoral.
You can argue that it doesn’t matter, but the CIA concept of blowback suggests otherwise.
And then there’s the question of where God fits in all of this:
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.. . . ” Thomas Jefferson
“Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions.”– Ulysses S. Grant
However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world — Bookworm
Communism was often given as the reason, Bookworm, but the underlying motivation was often the desire to control a nation’s natural resources. The 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq is a prime example. After Truman wisely turned them down, the Brits sold the coup to Eisenhower using the fight against Communism as the reason, but oil was the prime motivation.
The overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala is another example. The United Fruit Company and the Dulles Brothes benefitted, though the peope of Guatemala certainly did not. As CIA associate Jack Peuifoy put it, “”I have come to Guatemala to use the big stick. I am definitely convinced that if the President (Arbenz) is not a communist, he will certainly do until one comes along.”
Again…
So what’s your point?
Again…
So what’s your point?
- suek
My point is the Truth is important, though it often takes years to decipher.
Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.
“If the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win…. The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention–the risk to American medical students there–was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will.” — Irving Kristol, The Fettered Presidency,1989
More on the 1953 Iranian coup:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.
The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.
We were at war with communism, and war is a messy business. Whether the adventure produced a more virulent strain of Islamic radicalism culminating in the ‘79 coup is speculation. Would the Mullahs been more moderate had the Shah been less repressive or was the Shah repressive because of the radical nature of the mullahs is also speculation.
What is evident that times change and attitudes change. Had today’s attitudes been projected during WWII, we would not have defeated the Nazis. The losses during D-day would have been unacceptable, the bombing of Dresden would have brought up calls for senate hearings, civilian losses in the slog to Berlin would have prompted cries of war crimes.
We don’t fight wars in the same way today, but WWII was not fought with the tactics of WWI.
When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.
The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.- Brian
Yes, I know. That doesnt make it the truth, however.
From an interview with the author of “All the Shah’s Men,” another book that deals with the 1953 coup:
” The British agent who came to Washington to present the coup plan to Eisenhower’s team, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, wrote afterward that he knew the Americans would not respond to an appeal based on Britain’s desire to regain its oil company. He decided instead to argue that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward communism. This argument was patently false, but Woodhouse sensed it would move John Foster Dulles and the rest of the Eisenhower administration into action. He was right.”
Truman saw Mossadegh as a buffer against communism. Go figure.
I suggest you read “All the Shah’s Men,” but in the meantime, here’s more from that interview:
Question: Let’s start with history. In 1953 the Eisenhower administration backed a coup against the elected leader of Iran, a man named Mossadegh, who had sought to nationalize the country’s oil industry. The British wanted to overthrow him to save their control over Iran’s oil. But why did the United States become involved? In your book you seem to argue that Ike was conned into helping the British out.
Answer: The idea that Mossadegh should be overthrown originated with the British. They were apoplectic at the prospect of losing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which Mossadegh’s government had nationalized with the unanimous approval of the Iranian parliament. Their efforts to carry out a coup, however, were disrupted when Mossadegh learned of their plan and responded by shutting the British embassy and expelling all British diplomats from Iran. Among these diplomats were the secret agents who had been assigned to carry out the coup. That left the British with no way to depose Mossadegh. Prime Minister Churchill tried to persuade President Truman to carry out the coup as a favor to the British, but Truman refused. Only after Eisenhower came into office did the United States change its mind.”
As I stated before, Woodhouse later wrote that he knew that Eisenhower would respond much the same way that Truman did, so he switched the sales pitch to the “patently false” argument that Iran was gonna go communist..
I was reading a book about the 1960s, a decade I watched from the sidelines, as I was just a small child, and was reminded that so much of what’s wrong with Africa nowadays was a result of British policies, that America blindly followed for Cold War reasons. That is, Britain set the agenda for economic or imperial benefit, and America blithely and thoughtlessly followed along because it saw advantages to its position vis a vis Russia. Certainly all those 60s and 70s chickens are coming home to roost, but it still doesn’t mean we’ve lost the right to defend ourselves. So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.
More on the 1953 Iranian coup- Brian
If you go to minute 5 or so in this clip, the coups in Iran and Guatemala are discussed. It’s interesting stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sstDwKTCpM
So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.- Book
People here have expressed concern about what might occur should Obama win the presidency. If I remember correctly, someone worried about detention camps, with U.S. citizens being rounded, but those plans have been around for decades, with Kellogg, Brown and Root currently winning the contracts to build emergency camps, if need be. Under LBJ, we had Operation Garden Plot and under Reagan, we had Rex 84, and those provisonal plans remain in place.
Ron Suskind’s latest book says that the Bush adminstration knew there weren’t WMD, which confirms what former CIA agent Ray McGovern was saying all along. Hell, George H. W Bush hired a PR company to sell the first Gulf War, and false stories about babies being thrown out of incubators and forged satelite photographs helped convince Congress.
And Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney et al discussed plans to build “Iranian” boats and shoot at Americans as a means to go to war with Iran. Which sounds a lot like Operation Northwoods, if you ask me.
What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.
We Americans should always be wary of the “official story” but for some reason, Democrats are perfectly fine with bad behavior from Democratic presidents and Republicans condone bad behavior from Republicans.
What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.
Like I said before, Book. It doesn’t really matter to Oz whether Russia gobbles up Georgia or the US takes over Afghanistan/Iraq.
Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Seymour Hersh is part of the government, for he has decided policy without even being elected.
It’s when you start talking about the government and how you have a superior perspective that your nihilism and refusal to believe in “mythologies” start breaking down into its constituent components.
Ozzie,
I watched the Bill Moyers “The Secret Government” piece and his account of Iran is at odds with other accounts that I provided, which frankly have more credibility.
I noticed the related videos–
“Visual Proof that Illuminati Bloodlines Control the Planet” or “UFO’s - The Secret Government”, or how about “CFR - The Secret Government”.
I like the last one.
And to your allegation that the WH forged a letter about AQ and Iraq:
I know, I know, Tenet is part of the cabal so he can’t possibly be telling the truth.
It should be pretty easy to produce Habbush. He must have burned through the $5 mil in hush money. I’m sure George Soros would ante up a few million more to back up Suskind’s story.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are so much fun. Careful analysis, giving statements the benefit of the doubt when prudent, and resisting the urge to assume the worst motives are not nearly so, well, fun.
I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.
I’d like to give Ozzie some partial credit. My post #14 claimed:
Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”
Ozzie was quite honest in replying in #16:
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:
I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)
But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.
Get it? Again, a specific comment relating to the west, and then a very, very short, utterly generic criticism of China as being “far worse”. But you will notice that Ozzie never lists even one detail of corroborating evidence concerning any other country. All he has is a vast listing of the sins of America, as presented by the Left.
All that would be fine. Except that the result of such an obsessive focus on the ends and means of your own country is that your foreign policy inevitably becomes “Blame America First”. From Ace Of Spades we get this commentary:
My favorite by far was the response of Armando Llorens, coblogger at Talkleft, who wrote:
We are ruled by lunatics. I can think of no good reason for the United States to have a missile defense system in Poland, EXCEPT to provoke Russia. To ANNOUNCE such a deal NOW, given the situation in the Caucasus, is simply madness.
At least he was able to puzzle out the significance of the deal.
This kind of analysis is in fact the inevitable result of Ozzie’s 100% focus on the Sins of America, while ignoring the Sins of Everyone Else.
- The only purpose is to “provoke Russia”. Not to “respond to Russian aggression”. It would be wrong, you see, for us to respond. Also, a response can be defended. A “provocation” is by definition completely unwarranted and is an initial, opening act of aggression. On the left, we are doing the provoking. Russia is just being… I suppose, innocent and blameless.
- You also have to love the usual refusal to assign blame or be specific. Note that the crisis is referred to solely as “the situation in the Caucasus”. As always, note how careful Leftist writers are to never assign blame to the Russians. Nor even to ever identify exactly what it is the Russians did.
What Ozzie does with his obsessive focus solely on the Sins Of America would be humorous, and not worth bringing up, if it wasn’t for this inevitable and dangerous resulting foreign policy approach.
Finally it’s worth noting that - as we’ve all pointed out in the past, many times - the same kind of Leftist blindness applies to Israel, the Palestinians; the entire Middle East. And the resulting Middle East foreign policy on the left is similarly an outrage.
Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. Then he’d conclude with,
“And, yes, Iran is being worse in demanding the genocide, complete and total murder, of all Israelis.” Actually, I’m being kind. That took me seventeen words. After ten thousand words damning the Israelis, I bet Ozzie would contain his criticisms of others to no more than ten words.
I noticed the related videos– Brian
Yeah. I noticed them , too. Many of them made me laugh.. But Bill Moyers can’t really help who his show gets lumped with on YouTube, can he?
“I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.” - Brian
All sorts of theories swirl around the Kennedy assassination, but they’re only theories. But only 3 in 10 Americans believe that Oswald acted alone.
The book I’m reading shows that government officials didnt buy the “Oswald as lone gunman,” theory, either. Many thought that the Kennedys’ plans to kiill Castro were turned on JFK .
I’d never venture to guess into who and or what was involved, but I stumbled across an interesting tidbit while reading “Legacy of Ashes.” According to the author, LBJ thought that JFK’s murder was divine retribution for Kennedy’s role in the assassination of President Diem.
“If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. . ” — Mike
Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.
Truman said “the only thing new is the history you dont know,” and though I lived through the 60s and 70s, finding out what was happening behind the scenes, as opposed to what we were told was happening, is FASCINATING to me.
Actually, all of the CIA’s history is pretty interesting.
“Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. — Mike
Um, and this is based on what?
Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.
This is why it is so important that the arguments that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.
Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).
Yes, Britain was not willing to accept the payment offered by Moseddeq for it’s investment in Iran’s oil infrastructure and expertise, or future royalties subsequent to the nationalization, but that is justifiable. Would an equitable settlement been obtainable? Don’t know, because that becomes speculation. But a fact is a negotiating team was sent to Tehran with a proposal that recognized the principle of nationalization but called for the AIOC to market Iran’s oil on a 50-50 profit sharing basis. This proposal was rejected by Mosaddeq in June 1951.
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong on the face of it.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.
This is why it is so important that the argument that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.
Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).
This is a must-read analysis:
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
This is a must-read analysis:
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
Oz doesn’t have any particular morality or ethical system he considers very true or right, so it doesn’t really matter, now does it.
If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:
The thing about nihilism is not that it particularly favors a certain viewpoint or what not, but that it hates nations and countries that actually have beliefs that they will fight for. Since nihilism believes that all these causes or what not are false, fake, and not worth it, nihilism believes that to prevent bloodshed and to remake the world in their image, they have to prevent people from believing in things.
When people have belief in something, they are willing to kill and die for those beliefs.
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
So Oz, a follower of nihilism and ultimate entropy, thus must take down sources of belief, and there is no greater belief for people to have faith in than the liberty coming from America.
It’s not about preventing bad actions or what not. It may be about preventing wars, in that if nobody believes anything, nobody will kill anybody over anything. But all of them are false, nihilism has no justifications for itself, even though it tries to make stuff up.
It is just this instinct for ultimate entropy, nothing else.
Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.
Here’s the difference, Oz, in case you hadn’t noticed by now.
Some people want to make the world a better place, and often their methods are mutually exclusive with each other. Some prefer totalitarian security and some prefer liberty without security. Others prefer a more balanced approach.
You, are only interested in history because of the entertainment value of seeing people suffer. You have no intention of changing things for the better. You have no belief that it can even be changed for the better.
That is the difference in attitude and the difference in belief which will forever separate you from those other classical liberals interested in American and world history.
You find entertainment value and glee momentums, in fashions short or long, in seeing good men fall and the weak crushed by the strong who are never held to account. Batman The Dark Knight is only the most recent example you have given of such sentiments, but it is not the only one.
All you ever focus on is how the strong, the mighty, and the just, like the US, can fall and destroy itself via chaos, entropy, or what not. It is what you are interested in.
But others like me, are not interested in studying entropy to create more of it.
BrianE, there is nothing you can say or do that will convince a person to re-arrange or reject his fundamental philosophical axioms.
That is true whether for American patriots and Russian patriots, or for nihilists and moral relativists.
All humans believe in things, even if they think they don’t believe in mythologies; they just believe in the truth, which is the history of America’s hidden government moments of human despair.
In post 54, the quote should begin in the second paragraph from the source I cited. The first paragraph is my take on it.
And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken- Brian
Each president inherits the covert actions of the previous president, Brian.
Read this book and we’ll compare notes.
http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm
As of now, I only have you telling me wrong, based on I’m not sure what, and others ascribing motivations, actions, and philosophies that make me realize why it’s probably better NOT to discuss anything of substance on the Internet.
But as for the continutation of covert actions from president to president. . . .
I’m only up to Carter and he seems to be the only president who tried to alter the course of the CIA, with devestating results to morale.
But, for me, it’ssimply fascinating to read the factual record of what really occured behind the scenes, and see how History unfolded.
Another interesting tidbit:
Esinehower thought the best defense against Communism in the Middle East would be to sell the struggle as an Islamic Jihad. “We should be everything possible to stress the holy war aspect,” he said..
“And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie” . . Brian
Ymar knows all and sees all, Brian.
But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no. - Brian
Theodore Roosevelt said that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people,” but Bill Moyers coined the term to describe America after the National Secirity Act of 1947 came into play. As he put it the Secret Government is “an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. . ”
Once again, I’d suggest you find a reputable book regarding America’s hidden history and read it.
And yes, at times, the CIA lied to presidents, such as during Operation Paperclip when they smuggled 700 or so Nazis into the country, including Klaus Barbie. (Operation Paperclip eventually spawned more notorious programs like Operation ARTICHOKE (extreme interrogation and torture) and MK-ULTRA (mind control).
Another interesting tidbit:
Ali Abu Hassan, the PLO terrorist reponsible for the murder of the Israeli
athletes during the 1972 Olympics became one of the CIA’s most reliable sources.
We dont negotiate with terroirists? Dig a little and you’ll see how ridiculous that statement is.
American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No!- Brian E.
There was a time in U.S history when War profiteering was regarded as a bad thing.
In fact, Franklin D Roosevelt said he didn’t “want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of [World War II],” and Henry A. Wallace, one of his vice presidents, wrote an op-ed decrying Americans who were making $$ from the war.
Ah, but everything old is new again and neither party is immune.
For your consideration, some more interesting history:
1937: A small company named Brown & Root (which will later become a division of Halliburton) calls upon Lyndon Johnson to procure $10 million in federal funding for the Mansfield Damn project. The freshman congressman eventually delivers the necessary authorization and funding for the project, which becomes the cornerstone of Brown and Root’s financial empire. In turn, Herman Brown finances Johnson’s political rise. “It was a totally corrupt relationship and it benefited both of them enormously. Brown & Root got rich, and Johnson got power and riches,” LBJ biographer Ronnie Dugger later notes, adding that Johnson “wouldn’t have been in the running without Brown & Root’s money and airplanes.”
1942: The New York Tribune features a front page story entitled “Hitler’s Angel has $3 million in US bank,” referring to Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen and his ties to Union Banking Corporation. Later that year, Union Bank official Prescott Bush, George W. Bush’s grandfather, is charged with “Running Nazi front groups in the United States.”
1944: Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace writes an Op-ed , discussing war profiteers who are “ruthless” in their “use of deceit or violence” to gain money and power — pointing to those who “hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends.” Newly discovered government documents prove that Prescott Bush’s ties to the Nazis continued until as late as 1951, and that he and his cohorts “routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.”
1961: President Eisenhower delivers his farewell address, warning of the military/industrial complex and the potential for a “disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips later chronicles how Bush dynasty founders George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were “present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex, in which the Bush family has been enmeshed ever since.”
1963: Lyndon Johnson takes office and Republicans in Congress soon wonder if Brown & Root’s new government contacts aren’t connected to its political contributions to the new president. The company eventually becomes part of a consortium which wins a $380 million contract to build bases, hospitals and airports for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. During America’s War on Terror, the Halliburton subsidiary has similar luck in Afghanistan and Iraq.
1967: The General Accounting Office faults “Vietnam Builders” Brown & Root for accounting lapses; protesters target Brown & Root as a symbol of the “military-industrial complex.” Decades later, historians cite parallels between Halliburton’s hefty Iraq contracts and Vietnam-era controversies, including “allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering.” In 2004, former Army Corps of Engineers contract officer Bunnatine Greenhouse charges that the Pentagon is improperly awarding no-bid contracts to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, which is already under investigation for overcharging the government.
Sept. 11, 2001: The Carlyle Group holds its annual investor conference in Washington, DC. Former Secretary of State James Baker and Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s brother, are in attendance. “The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington’s strange affair with Saudi Arabia,” author Robert Baer later writes. Further evidence of this “strange affair” surfaces following the 9/11 attacks. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, when the nation’s airspace is restricted, the White House allows airplanes to pick up Saudi VIPS, including members of the bin Laden family. And when victims’ families file a $1 t