World Politics

[rhubroma]

The problem with this part of your argument is that those who critize the US also claim moral superiority, so they too must lead by example, this is in their case also simply not the case.

I do not agree with the policy of the US, as I thought I had made clear. However I do have a problem with those that critize the US while not being disgusted by other atrocities, far worse than what the US does AT THE MOMENT. People who feel safe to critize yet take no action, action which they could be taking. People who critize the US but do not put in the effort to first change the policy within their own state, to stop their own state from violating human rights and condoning and aiding in human rights abuses by other states with their developmental aid.

I do not think you understand my point. I have issues with the policy of the US, I do have problems, especially with their track record. Yet I see that their are far more pressing matters at hand, pressing matters in which I myself can provide a contribution, if not by my own hand, at least through my own government. But for many people the US is the equivalent of a boogeyman, whatever they do is magnified and is turned against, yet what happens in smaller countries is overlooked. People in other states than the US needs to look at their own states first before pointing their finger to blame others. If they do not do so they also claim moral superiority without leading by example

Point one: you can't deflect away from one problem, nor justify it, be citing another.

Point two: I have never tryed to justify the criminal behavior of other States. While I have already mentioned how many a criminal regime has survived, precisely because of the help it is afforded by the US government and military. You speak about those in a position to do something but don't? Who? The weak and oppressed? Oh how they'd love to if they just got a little help from Uncle Sam rather than having America support the very instrument of their oppression. But this is rather beside the point. As an American, therefore, I am forced to denounce the grave crimes of my own State before attacking another for the reason I have already mentioned: namely before you tell others how to clean up their yards, you have to clean yours first. This simple truth, while so incredibly objective, arduous and therefore inconvenient to some, nevertheless is the only way to be spared from just criticisms of hypocrisy. And especially when (because) none of those other States have enjoyed the privildges and leadership role that America has actively cultivated for itself over the past century. It's example, consequently, simply carries more weight than the others. In other words, were America to have been more consistant in making sure its actions followed what it preached in the areas of so called freedom and human rights, if its business agenda really had been about promoting wealth globally and not about the worst kind of exploitation to make the corporate machine fat, then your calling out of others for their mistakes would have made more impact and seemed less hypocritical.

The truth is that if America wants to change the world, then America needs to first change from within. Otherwise any attempts to forcibly cause change externally will be met with the most fanatical resistance, as we have been seeing taking place of late, precisely because great power comes with great responsibility. Whereas the abuses of such great power can (and do), in the long term, inflict much more injustice than any petty dictatorship, regime of terrorist network does in the short term. This is what has been much more taking place under America's global leadership, especially since the 70's and 80's, than any real force of justice and humanitarianism coming out of it. When the US military apparatus opperates illegaly under the aegis of the federal government, in the interests of its powerful economic establishment and in the name of the American people, when its soldiers violate every form of human rights through torture and subversivness, then, given its size and power, it behaves not like a legal force of liberation for the cause of peace, but as the worlds largest international terrorist organization. One must change from within before expecting their efforts to alter the outside.

This probably won't happen, but it needs to be baldly said.

Until you are free to critisize yourself ruthlessly first before critisizing others, this world has no hope.

 

[Barrus]

Uhm, Rhub I was alluding to the Australians and Europeans, the main groups outside of the Americans on this forum.

For an American I would have no issue to critize America, for those who are not American, I believe one should first look at their own state and the things that are condoned or even encouraged by their own states in foreign states. For many Europeans they critize the US because it is the hip thing to do, but they do not recognize the problems that are within their own state or enforced due to their own state, nor do they take any action

As an American, therefore, I am forced to denounce the grave crimes of my own State before attacking another for the reason I have already mentioned: namely before you tell others how to clean up their yards, you have to clean yours first.

This is exactly the point I am making. I believe you and I agree, but we do not understand each other, as you make the exact point that I am making. One must first recognize and try to ensure the end of the problems in their own state and that are enforced by their own state before one looks at other states.

Or to put it in biblical terms:

He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone

 

[rhubroma]

Uhm, Rhub I was alluding to the Australians and Europeans, the main groups outside of the Americans on this forum.

For an American I would have no issue to critize America, for those who are not American, I believe one should first look at their own state and the things that are condoned or even encouraged by their own states in foreign states. For many Europeans they critize the US because it is the hip thing to do, but they do not recognize the problems that are within their own state or enforced due to their own state, nor do they take any action



This is exactly the point I am making. I believe you and I agree, but we do not understand each other, as you make the exact point that I am making. One must first recognize and try to ensure the end of the problems in their own state and that are enforced by their own state before one looks at other states.

Or to put it in biblical terms:

No, you're so wrong about that. I live in Europe. The vast majority of European criticism levied upon the US is precisely in connection with its criminal actions as I have described them and nothing else. It is thus a just criticism and has every right to be said.

And by the way the Europeans are often just as critical of their own governments, especially when they become mere pawns to the US economic and military machine, but also on a host of issues that have nothing to do with America's global leadership. Just talk to certain Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans, British, etc. about their States, who are quite numerous; I think you will find the same ruthless condemnation about its crimes (during the colonial era as within the present globalized arena of this age) as you will in any against America. Europe is no saint, but at least it has spared us all of the triumphalistic and moralistic rhetoric we have been constantly bombarded with coming out of America just because, as the superpower, it feels it has the moral perogative to so do. It was that way with the fall of the Soviet Union in 89 (even though nothing's changed, but has been rather made worse), just as it has been in the conflict of civilizations in the post 9-11 era.

So this is not about bias. Unfortunately America wanted the superpower status and actively cultivated its leadership role. Well, anybody in such a position is natuturally the first to whom the criticism is directed. Simple. And unfortunately America has made of itself an all too easy target by its business, diplomatic and military praxis, which is nobody else's fault but its own. My point is that we must see through the propaganda and ideology in order to arrive at something more useful to humanity then creating very subjective "good guys" and "bad guys" throughout the four corners of the globe. Especially because, as we have seen, nobody is all good, just as nobody is all bad bar very few exceptions.

And no we're not saying exactly the same things, because it is really about measure and weighing the effects of ones actions against the consequenses for others conditions. In this America had a unique opportunity to really do some good around the globe, but simply opted to do what every other Empire in the history of civilization has done: look after its own interests, no matter what effect that caused within a miriad of other societies and cultures. No single State has had such an incredible opportunity and, at the same time, achieved such devestating results in the whole history of the world.

Ciao.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Uhm, Rhub I was alluding to the Australians and Europeans, the main groups outside of the Americans on this forum.

For an American I would have no issue to critize America, for those who are not American, I believe one should first look at their own state and the things that are condoned or even encouraged by their own states in foreign states. For many Europeans they critize the US because it is the hip thing to do, but they do not recognize the problems that are within their own state or enforced due to their own state, nor do they take any action

If by any chance you are including me in your group of Australians etc, then I think you should know that I have been actively involved in opposition to the stance and actions of the Australian goverment on a range of issues, including its complicity on torture and rendition, amongst many, many other things. I speak up to challenge or criticize and I take what action I can to change things. (Lately, alas, because of illness, I have had to pull back on this activity.)

Some people believe that everyone on the planet should be entitled to vote at a US presidential election because the power and influence of the US is so great. I have sympathy for this position, and think everyone in the world is likewise entitled to have and express an opinion (whether that be admiring &/or critical) of the actions and rhetoric of the US government.

 

[The Hitch]

I would like to back Barrus up on the lack of critisicism against non american states.

Example 1 France. It is a member of the UN security council, and hence has a veto. France pretty much believes it owns subsaharan Africa. They constantly get involved in African politics, they use their veto on Africa, much of Africa relies entirely on France for its trade. Its well known that France uses nuclear testing in its colonies, and they once blew up a greenpeace protest against this. It supports various dictatorships in Africa, played a very bad roll in Rwanda and when they dont like whats going on, they invade, as in 2004 in Cote d ivioir. They are hated all over Africa. In fact all over Africa, the United States is very popular (and was before Obama) because of the millions of aid that goes there, especially under the Bush administration, which gave far more than any of its predeccesors. But i dont here about the low popularity France gets for its government actions.

Not a single word is said against France.

Moreover their last president before sarkozy, Chirac, was a man so corrupt he recently faced trial for it. So corrupt, he had to run for reelection to prolong his presidential immunity.

But those "peace loving liberals" in France now love the man. Why, because he refused to support America on Iraq. Why did Chirac oppose Americas actions in Iraq? Because he had a business deal with Saddam. After America eventually turned its back on the dictator, Chircac took him in with open arms.
Moreover Chirac was directly responsible for much of the misery in Africa during his 12 years in power, as well as the nuclear testing and all the other stuff, as well as ruining the European Union through even more corruption on his part.
But a very large perecentage of France sees this as noble. Because at the end of the day, Saddam Hussein may have been bad, but he is nothing, nothing compared to the United States And at the end of the day, its all right to do nuclear testing, and invade the ivory coast, and back the military dictatorships, and use your veto on anything in Africa and not a word will be said, so long as your name is France and not the United States.

As for other countries, where are the millions marching on Russias embassy for its crimes in Chechnia? Instead Putin gets treated with immense respect by western Europe and the EU. But various United States leaders are persona non grata. Nothing the US has done in recent decades, is even comparable to Putin. Russia is deliberately murdering and torturing men women and children in their thousands, under a brutal oppression of Chechnia, where much of the populations bio would be a horror story. This on top of hundreds of other great crimes, including running the kgb, funding criminal organisations in their attempted rape of western europe, murdering foreign citizens and poisoning innocent bystanders with deadly substance polonium210 and using gas supplies as a weapon against Eastern Europe.
But the Olympics or World cup votes, Bush's presence would automatically get US kicked out, but Putins presence gets Russia the 2014 olympics and his friendship with Fifa gets them the world cup.

This definately says to me that Western Europe, the ego fuelled lands which see themselves as the centre of humanity, have far more sympathy to non americans on such issues.

There was a poster on here whos signature was the "eyes on dafur " website, but those of us who care about it are clearly in the minority. Seeing as so many people so desperately wanted a second resolution from the United Nations on Iraq, presumably that means unlike me they recognise the UN as an legitimate institution. Where then are the protests over the UNs appauling passiveness in Rwanda, and its refusal to do anything about Dafur as people were being massacred in the thousands based on race?

Nonexisstant unfortunately.

 

[rhubroma]

I would like to back Barrus up on the lack of critisicism against non american states.

Example 1 France. It is a member of the UN security council, and hence has a veto. France pretty much believes it owns subsaharan Africa. They constantly get involved in African politics, they use their veto on Africa, much of Africa relies entirely on France for its trade. Its well known that France uses nuclear testing in its colonies, and they once blew up a greenpeace protest against this. It supports various dictatorships in Africa, played a very bad roll in Rwanda and when they dont like whats going on, they invade, as in 2004 in Cote d ivioir. They are hated all over Africa. In fact all over Africa, the United States is very popular (and was before Obama) because of the millions of aid that goes there, especially under the Bush administration, which gave far more than any of its predeccesors. But i dont here about the low popularity France gets for its government actions.

Not a single word is said against France.

Moreover their last president before sarkozy, Chirac, was a man so corrupt he recently faced trial for it. So corrupt, he had to run for reelection to prolong his presidential immunity.

But those "peace loving liberals" in France now love the man. Why, because he refused to support America on Iraq. Why did Chirac oppose Americas actions in Iraq? Because he had a business deal with Saddam. After America eventually turned its back on the dictator, Chircac took him in with open arms.
Moreover Chirac was directly responsible for much of the misery in Africa during his 12 years in power, as well as the nuclear testing and all the other stuff, as well as ruining the European Union through even more corruption on his part.
But a very large perecentage of France sees this as noble. Because at the end of the day, Saddam Hussein may have been bad, but he is nothing, nothing compared to the United States And at the end of the day, its all right to do nuclear testing, and invade the ivory coast, and back the military dictatorships, and use your veto on anything in Africa and not a word will be said, so long as your name is France and not the United States.

As for other countries, where are the millions marching on Russias embassy for its crimes in Chechnia? Instead Putin gets treated with immense respect by western Europe and the EU. But various United States leaders are persona non grata. The US in Iraq, however wrong you think their decision to get involved may have been, is hardly going round conducting genocide. Russia on the other hand is deliberately murdering and torturing men women and children in their thousands, under a brutal oppression of Chechnia, where much of the populations bio would be a horror story. This on top of hundreds of other great crimes, including running the kgb, funding criminal organisations in their attempted rape of western europe, murdering foreign citizens and poisoning innocent bystanders with deadly substance polonium210 and using gas supplies as a weapon against Eastern Europe.
But the Olympics or World cup votes, Bush's presence would automatically get US kicked out, but Putins presence gets Russia the 2014 olympics and his friendship with Fifa gets them the world cup.

This definately says to me that Western Europe, the ego fuelled lands which see themselves as the centre of humanity, have far more sympathy to non americans on such issues.

There was a poster on here whos signature was the "eyes on dafur " website, but those of us who care about it are clearly in the minority. Seeing as so many people so desperately wanted a second resolution from the United Nations on Iraq, presumably that means unlike me they recognise the UN as an legitimate institution. Where then are the protests over the UNs appauling passiveness in Rwanda, and its refusal to do anything about Dafur as people were being massacred in the thousands based on race?

Nonexisstant unfortunately.

No you're right about the terrible French policies within the black continent, though this has not been an exclusively French case, for example when it came to Belgian Congo. Congo finally got its independence on June 30, 1960, when Patrice Emery Lumumba, its first democratically elected prime minister, took office. Unfortunately the Western powers, primarily the United States and Belgium, could not allow a fiercely independent African to consolidate his power over such a geo-strategic prize as the Congo. Lumumba was removed from power in a Western-backed coup within weeks and assassinated on Jan. 17, 1961.

Belgium apologized for its role in Lumumba’s assassination in 2002, yet the U.S. still downplays its role in murdering this great young leader. The U.S. replaced Lumumba with the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and backed him until he was overthrown in 1997. Thus Congo's wealth led to Congo's holocaust. Unfortunately this has not been an isolated case.

As far as Russia is concerned it's primarily about methane gas in regards to why Putin's Russia is so tolerated, that and because the former Soviet Union still represents the greatest threat to European stability in the post Cold-War Era. So long as their is an Islamic terrorist component in the tragedy of Chechenia, then there will be some sympathy for the Russian cause. While the US's, not reliant upon the Great Bear for energy, can afford a few rhetorical and largely instrumental critiques of its former great rival in the global arena. Yet as far as taking a real position against Russia, America has hardly been serious, just as it's stance before the authoritarian government in China has been pathetic for calculated economic interests. These issues remain non grata, as you say, but are not the stuff worth picking a fight over.

Still I read articles all the time about how terrible the Euro governments behave when allying themselves too uncritically to Russia for economic interests. No more is this the case in Italy where we have a very personal matter between private business and public affairs, in the grotesque relationship between Berlusconi and Putin.

So you pick a fight only when you know you can get away with it, where the stakes are high in terms of material gain and where you don't find much international resistance: so you invade Iraq instead. Everything else is just talk, and talk is cheapest among the political class.

 

[redtreviso]

As far as Russia is concerned it's primarily about methane gas in regards to why Putin's Russia is so tolerated, that and because the former Soviet Union still represents the greatest threat to European stability in the post Cold-War Era. So long as their is an Islamic terrorist component in the tragedy of Chechenia, then there will be some sympathy for the Russian cause. While the US's, not reliant upon the Great Bear for energy, can afford a few rhetorical and largely instrumental critiques of its former great rival in the global arena. Yet as far as taking a real position against Russia, America has hardly been serious, just as it's stance before the authoritarian government in China has been pathetic for calculated economic interests. These issues remain non grata, as you say, but are not the stuff worth picking a fight over.

The Islamic terrorist component in all the pipelinistans is by proxy the US sticking a finger in Russia's eye.

 

[rhubroma]

The Islamic terrorist component in all the pipelinistans is by proxy the US sticking a finger in Russia's eye.

Good point, thanks.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html:cool:

 

[Spare Tyre]

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html:cool:

And if that doesn't work, try:

http://wikileaks.nl/mirrors.html

 

[Anonymous]

And if that doesn't work, try:

http://wikileaks.nl/mirrors.html

I for one am heartened to see that people around the world are willing to fight like hell to preserve truth. I am sure that there are people though out the US government talking about how this has gotten out of hand. Let it get more out of hand. Death of lies by 1,000 cuts, and 1,000,000 if necessary.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I for one am heartened to see that people around the world are willing to fight like hell to preserve truth. I am sure that there are people though out the US government talking about how this has gotten out of hand. Let it get more out of hand. Death of lies by 1,000 cuts, and 1,000,000 if necessary.

Yes, I'm heartened by it too, and am continuing to step up my support.

In the meantime, in Australia today:

"A group of almost 200 prominent names have appealed to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to defend WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

"[In] the open letter posted on the ABC's Drum website, figures such as writer Noam Chomsky, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson, retired intelligence officer Lance Collins and actor Max Gillies call on Ms Gillard to ensure Mr Assange's safety in light of the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding WikiLeaks."

"We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states," they write."

from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/07/3087189.htm

Link to the Drum website, letter and signatories

Edit to add: AFAIK comments are still open so you can add your name to the petition too.

 

[rhubroma]

I for one am heartened to see that people around the world are willing to fight like hell to preserve truth. I am sure that there are people though out the US government talking about how this has gotten out of hand. Let it get more out of hand. Death of lies by 1,000 cuts, and 1,000,000 if necessary.

As you know perfectly well that I've lost my belief in miracles and even if nothing comes of this, the impact we have seen has been incredible.

The truth is that Power still operates in occultist ways, even the democratic powers. Just think if somehow it could all be blown open? Everybody would have to face the irrefutable truth and that same power structure would no longer have the credibility that even now it still enjoys by most.

Just look at the build-up to the Iraq war in Europe. America had its "willing" and "unwilling" (mostly "willing") allies, but this was a reflection of Power, not what the common people on the streets thought. For political and economic expediency each nation chose a course of action to take, Britain, Spain and Italy were pro, France and Germany con. Yet I recall that nearly everybody, irrespective of nationality, thought the reasoning behind the invasion was a total (as it in the end proved to be) sham, invented by America to pursue its re-structuring of the Mideast according to its own image and liking for oil. Consequently we had the 2003 protests, millions came out on the streets across Europe to protest the war: in Rome, just as in Paris, in London just as in Madrid. I myself marched in Rome.

Which means that 90% of the respective national populations were better than their governments, because theirs was simply a moral issue that took no consideration of geo-political and economic strategy as the politicians who represented them were cynically doing at the time.

When Power operates in such an occultist way, as this one example demonstrates, moral considerations go out the door and democracy is dead, just on the percentages alone (90% vs. 10%). It also demonstrates that there are far more people with good intentions and good heads out there, then the national governments and corporations, based on what they do, would ever otherwise let us know.

If what Assange is doing isn't a revolution, then, under the proper aid from all of us, it just might end up becoming one. That is until Power finds a way to clamp down on and repress such initiatives, as it has always done when finding the necessary pressure to bear; just as it is ferociously trying to do right now to save face. But by it saving face, we all loose.

This is why I fully support this movement. Give power to the people.

PS: The circle is indeed closing in on Assange. The Swiss have closed the WikiLeaks accounts. Assange may look to plea bargain his way out.

On a closing note I leave all with a quote from the journalist Giovanni Giudici from his article entitled: Le menzogna e i suoi limiti ("The Lie and Its Limits)

"The quality of any political figure can be evaluated by the measure in which he can permit himself to intimately believe that what he says is true, to reduce to the bear minimum the difference between what goes on on stage and what takes place behind the scenes. That they really coincide 100% is a luxury that nobody should want to expect; however, between the reasonable and the necessary and the miserableness of praxis, it is equally conspicuous (and tragic) a discrepancy."

Assange has tried to challenge and ultimately discredit the first axiom of Giudici's thesis.

 

[Cobblestones]

Apparently you can't donate via Mastercard any more*, only Visa. And Assange has been arrested by the British police.

On a related topic: 19 nations (including China) will boycott the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony. So we see the rise of another big player on the block. I would love to see Chinese cables going to their embassies regarding the matter.

Ironically, just to make the connection crystal clear for everybody to see, Wikileaks has released a cable showing that the US and China worked together (against the Europeans) during the world climate conference in Copenhagen last year.

*ETA: we need a new list of things you cannot buy according to Mastercard:
1) transparency
2) free press
3) legal representation

feel free to add...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Apparently you can't donate via Mastercard any more*, only Visa. And Assange has been arrested by the British police.

On a related topic: 19 nations (including China) will boycott the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony. So we see the rise of another big player on the block. I would love to see Chinese cables going to their embassies regarding the matter.

Ironically, just to make the connection crystal clear for everybody to see, Wikileaks has released a cable showing that the US and China worked together (against the Europeans) during the world climate conference in Copenhagen last year.

*ETA: we need a new list of things you cannot buy according to Mastercard:
1) transparency
2) free press
3) legal representation

feel free to add...

The United States has a direct interest in keeping China up and polluting. It is all Economic.
The EPA in the United States could put forth real changes over the last 2 years but were caught up dragging their feet.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Islamic terrorist component in all the pipelinistans is by proxy the US sticking a finger in Russia's eye.

Sort-a like the old Russian war against Afghanistan? Maybe that was not your intention with the post but that is the feeling I get on the subject. They may not be going so far as to supply weapons to the terrorist but it seems they are content to leave them alone in their fight against Russia.

 

[rhubroma]

I though this was well stated:

The Superpower That Is No More
By Thomas L. Friedman (from la Repubblica today)

Ok, I’ll admit it, like many, I find it entertaining to read others e-mails. And I’ve found how useful it was to read the documents put forth by WikiLeaks. But what one reads between the lines is different. Something like a cold shower, a message that makes us open our eyes to a cruel reality: American power is in decline.

Let’s begin with the substance contained in the documents, of which I think I have gotten the sense: Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States would like the US to decapitate the Iranian regime and destroy its nuclear potential. The leaders of the Arab world could then celebrate in private their triumph over the hated Persians, faking at once publicly that they are on the side of the furious Arab mobs that would protest on the streets while burning the effigy of Uncle Sam. The motive for which an attack against Iran would rouse the ire of the Arab populations, even if they don’t see the Iranians in a good light, is the even greater aversion they feel toward their non-elected leaders. And so the protest against the American’s, who contribute to that leadership’s staying in power, is thus a way to vent their hatred of both simultaneously.

Are you following me?

From the published documents we also find out that while the Saudis would like nothing more than to induce us to neutralize Iran’s nuclear potential, the most important financiers of global terrorism – to say nothing of the fundamentalist mosques, of fund-raising centers and schools responsible for the Taliban proliferation in Afghanistan and ****stan – are private Saudi contributors. Therefore, to sum it up, the proceeds of the oil exportation to the US get recycled back through Saudi Arabia and wind up financing the same militants that our soldiers are confronting over-seas. But don’t think this has nothing to do with our so called allies in the region…

According to the documents made public by WikiLeaks, Ahmed Zia Massoud, Vice President of Afghanistan between 2004-2009, today the owner of a posh residence in Dubai, was found by the customs officials to have been in the possession of 52 million dollars in cash, but could not explain from where he had gotten it. Again according to these documents, the US is often constrained to pay off, in mafia fashion, the leaders of Afghanistan and ****stan who otherwise would be unquestionably and universally anti-American both publicly and privately.

Are you still with me?

Yes, these would be our so called allies – folks with whom we share, and will never share, absolutely nothing in terms of values. “Alright, nobody’s perfect” our Saudi, those in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan and ****stan allies tell us – but if we disappear, in our place there is only worse to come: the Taliban, Al Qaida, folks all of the same stuff, who never hesitate to express their hatred for America both in public and private.

It’s true. Yet if we are constrained to diplomatically, militarily and economically provide support to these terrible regimes, why aren’t we in the least bit able to reform them? In light of this let’s return to the revelatory container, to the cold shower represented by those documents. That which is politically missing on the part of the US, is the total absence of any plea bargaining power. In the Middle East we don’t have any plea bargaining power because of our dependency on oil. It’s as simple as that. In this battlefield we are the addicts, they the pushers.

If we import oil to the tune of 28 billion dollars per month, we simply can’t say to the Saudis: “We know that in your place there would be only something worse, but we find no reason to have to decide between your bad government and corruption; and their brutality and intolerance.” We have placed ourselves in the condition to have to support that, yes, combats Al Qaida on its home soil, but at the same time utilizes our money to finance schools, mosques and books disseminating a religious ideology from which Al Qaida will always find a steady reserve to recruit into its ranks to combat us, in Saudi Arabia as well as elsewhere. And, in the same fashion, we don’t have a sufficient plea bargaining power on the level of the relationship between China and North Korea, nor with respect to China’s monetary value caused by our own Chinese credit dependency.

Now in geopolitics the key factor is always one’s plea bargaining power. We, therefore, can’t improve the level of our security abroad if we don’t first modify our nation’s internal behavior. But our political class has unremittingly rammed against this plea bargaining power we so badly lack and are in dire need of, whenever it lacked the foresight in not allowing what was most convenient to our oil and financial establishments to dictate the short term strategy. Hence the disaster we find ourselves dealing with today. Imagine how different our encounters with Saudi Arabia would be today if we had begun to convert our cars to electrical power, be it from a nuclear, wind, solar, or natural gas energy. We could say, “If we discover that just one Saudi dollar went to the Taliban we’ll leave you all alone to confront yourselves with Iran.” Thus the conservatism and greed of our own oil industrialists and their practically owning our political class, has facilitated the weak position that we are in today. The same goes for the financial lobbyists.

Imagine who different our encounters with China could be these last years if we were to have had a different level of savings in the US and China didn’t hold Treasury Bonds to the amount of 900 billion dollars, but rather still depended upon the American economy and its technologies. We certainly wouldn’t be standing here begging them to give a higher value to their currency. And perhaps our requests to not allow North Korea to use Beijing’s airport to send ballistic missile parts to Iran (according to a WikiLeaks document) would have not been so brusquely refused.

In the end imagine how much our economic sanctions against Iran would have been more effective had the oil cost 20$ a barrel instead of 80$.

If fifty years ago the world had gone in a certain direction because of US power, it was precisely because America had the force to determine such an orientation. Since then, however, such power has ever been on the decline, because of our dependence on oil and Chinese credit. WikiLeaks makes us see the bad medicine we are now forced to take because of all of this. Certain problems, I’m well aware, are extremely and intrinsically difficult to resolve, and surely these don’t exclusively rely upon our Nation fixing these issues. But it is equally true that without them, we would have a plea bargaining power far superior to that which cripples us now.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If this was all so simple we could just turn the Saudi Valve off and live without the influence. Same goes for the rest of the region who no doubt will never be the US friends or allies.

 

[redtreviso]

Sort-a like the old Russian war against Afghanistan? Maybe that was not your intention with the post but that is the feeling I get on the subject. They may not be going so far as to supply weapons to the terrorist but it seems they are content to leave them alone in their fight against Russia.

Sort of???? Bush 41's New World Order is all about making the central Asian states not independent of their former Soviet overlords but puppets of the US at most and the west at the least..Those counties with moslem populations but Moscow leaning leadership are under pressure from Saudi financed radicals with much much more than a wink and a nod of approval from the U.S. Even the Israelis get in on it when gas supplies can benefit them. (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline etc)...al Quedea and the taliban etc exists to screw with Vino's brothers more than any hatred towards the US..If not they would be a huge presence surrounding Israel in the name of Jihad.

George W Bush Avenue in Georgia?..Good Lord!!!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sort of???? Bush 41's New World Order is all about making the central Asian states not independent of their former Soviet overlords but puppets of the US at most and the west at the least..Those counties with moslem populations but Moscow leaning leadership are under pressure from Saudi financed radicals with much much more than a wink and a nod of approval from the U.S. Even the Israelis get in on it when gas supplies can benefit them. (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline etc)...al Quedea and the taliban etc exists to screw with Vino's brothers more than any hatred towards the US..If not they would be a huge presence surrounding Israel in the name of Jihad.

George W Bush Avenue in Georgia?..Good Lord!!!

This has been going on even before Bush 41 etc. I know a little bit about pipeline security and understand what your posting. I used Sort-of as a jesture hope it did not stew you?

 

[Cobblestones]

The Daily Mail article on charges against Assange brought in Swedish court.

 

[redtreviso]

This has been going on even before Bush 41 etc. I know a little bit about pipeline security and understand what your posting. I used Sort-of as a jesture hope it did not stew you?

Yes ,,,,it has been going on before 41.. It was called the Cold War.

I think the anti american quotient has to do with radical islamists being used to destabilize the region and then american oil interests rush in to pick up the pieces..The jihadists think they are fighting for Islam, The Saudis think they will control the region but are glad to have their militants busy far away..At the end of the day the Jihadists don't dare hijack Russian airplanes and fly them into the kremlin. Riyahd and Dubai know what would happen next.

 

[straydog]

Ok stray dog.

Seeing as you do generally seem bewildered by my claim that Americas crimes in the 70's and 80's in Iraq were far worse, i will address this issue for you.

First lets look at you glorious take on the subject, filled with insults to my intelligence.


While reading this i hoped for your sake that you would stop, but you just kept on digging a bigger and bigger grave for yourself.

Yes americas biggest crimes in Iraq were in the 1970's and 80's and your post demonstrates that your own knowledge of history is severely limited.

So my comment is so stupid that it was probably not proof read, and makes me look "so uninformed". You then mock my typos, despite the fact that you make several yourself.

Here are Americas crimes in Iraq in 1970's and 80's

1 Spending millions of dollars backing a Kurdish rebbellion in 1972, which they secretly hoped, and made sure would fail, in order to totaly destabalise Iraq, totaly, hence ruining the lives of millions of people. To top if off, leave the Kurds in the rebbellion to get their punishment.

2 Supporting and backing Saddam Hussein as he brought on a reign of terror unparalleled anywhere. Creating a society so dire and poor, that recovery is almost impossible.

3 Being entirely responsible for the Iran Iraq war, in which approximately 1.5 million Iraqis died. Ill repeat that number. 1.5 million. ANother 1.5 million young Iranians. In top of the deaths, further destabilisation of both countries.

Do you seriously think anything America has done in Iraq in the last 7 years is even remotely comparable to these 3 actions.

It was these and not the 2003 invasion which are responsible for the dire situation IRaq has found itself in, because in the 70's and 80's America, for other political gains, totaly destroyed the country and killed millions of people and destined millions more for lives of suffering.


Maybe after reading this now regret the lenghts to which you went to mock that comment?

At the very least i hope, you stop passing yourself of as some great mind, while continuing to make the most stupid assumptions ( the userme comment) and betraying your own ignorance.

Ok Hitch...apologies for the late response... (and apologies to everyone else for quoting his entire post again)...I have been busy.

The reason I find your use of the name "hitch" and the avatar ridiculous and insulting is because I admire Christopher Hitchens and I find your inability to actually listen to what he has to say dispiriting. I admire him, but I think he is wrong and capable of flawed and ill judged argument.

So Hitchens tells you that the situation in Iraq pales into insignificance compared to the US foreign policy in the region in the 70s and 80s ("That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"....guess who?)...and you believe him why?

Because he said so? A man who had vociferously supported George W Bush's invasion of Iraq and so is likely to carry on trying to justify why he was "right". So he thinks the 70's and 80's were worse, so automatically you do? Have you not heard him also say, "the only thing I am certain of is uncertainty...the only thing I am sure of is doubt". And yet you don't spot the irony in not using this logic to "doubt" or even question your hero or his statements? This sounds like blind faith hitch...something I don't think he condones.

"Seek out argument and disputation for its own sake...." Can you guess who it is?

So to just point out the most simple flaws in your post....point 2 first....Saddam's reign of terror was unparallelled anywhere? When do you think history started Hitch? When you started reading Hitchens? Have you not read anything about.....er....let's just say for example...anything that happened between 1939-1945? Really?

And Hitch, even if his reign were unparallelled, would this mean we should just ignore anything that is happening now? Or not be disgusted about it? Not raise our voices in condemnation? If that is the case....let's just give up caring...cos thankfully very few regimes have ever apparoached what happened during the third reich...so everyone should get a pass now....no way near as bad!

And the US foreign policy in Iraq in the 70s and 80s is "totally" responsible for the state the country is in now? So why are you criticising people for condemning the US? Because they should be saving their voices for complaints against other states?

Nothing catastrophic in WL? Despite the ongoing US pressured reaction of Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, A Private bank in Swtizerland, Sweden's public prosecutor, public calls for JA's assassination? I know a few countries (let alone individuals) who don't agree with you there hitch...56,000,000 hits and counting

"Do justice and let the skies fall"...look it up if you can't guess....

Hitch, your posts are examples of intellectual (and moral) pygmyism. As such, I know it is hard to see the high ground from down where you are, but at least try not to pretend that you can, by standing on the library stool of some really p*ss poor arguments or misunderstandings of others opinions.

point 3...your "statistics"...I know...I know...statisitics blah blah blah...but actually, estimates for Iraq's casualties are at or under half a million and Iran around the million mark during the Iraq/Iran war...but hey if you need to inflate some "stats" to back up such a weak minded argument....I suppose I should turn a blind eye to that...after all look at what you are suggesting we turn a blind eye to, with what the US is doing.

Finally...I have to quote you for this bit..."Maybe after reading this now regret the lenghts to which you went to mock that comment?"....well hitch, if you mean do I regret mocking you after reading your post? (and admittedly it is hard to sometimes fathom what it is you are trying to say) I can assure you that the answer is no. In fact I wish I had mocked it more. Honestly.

"What is it you most dislike? Stupidity."....I didn't say that by the way

Hitch, this is an extraordinary time we are witnessing....democracy being re constituted....ordinary people being empowered to hold those in "power" to account. Despite my criticism of you, I would invite you to share in this, and embrace it. Open your eyes and be part of it. Don't miss this oppurtunity to effect real change....otherwise, well, history will be the judge and our children the witnesses.

Peace

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But no one really thinks Bush did what he did for the long-term greater good of the US, do they? He seemed much more focused on getting money for friends in high places. Various US petroleum, energy, and banking industries to be specific, and that is where US power brokering was/is focused. It's neoconservativism at it's most fundamental.

I mean, this wasn't Nixon going to China...

Interesting Friedman analysis.

 

[straydog]

But no one really thinks Bush did what he did for the long-term greater good of the US, do they? He seemed much more focused on getting money for friends in high places. Various US petroleum, energy, and banking industries to be specific, and that is where US power brokering was/is focused. It's neoconservativism at it's most fundamental.

I mean, this wasn't Nixon going to China...

Interesting Friedman analysis.

Agree whole heartedly....concise....to the point....in a nut shell.

Where Bush's attempt to dress up his war mongering and profiteering came somewhat unstuck was when his whole WMD red herring was so egregiously exposed.

This one isn't going away....and I think others who's complicity risks being exposed have shown themselves up for what they are in relation to WL.

Simply....they are scared.