Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Robin Green]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:50:10PM -0700, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>  I'm kind of weird in that I think we're at war whenever we send 
> soldiers somewhere to kill people.

I think that's a good definition. However, I disagree with the rest,
for the reasons which I will elaborate:

> Iraq is really a side issue, its kind of something we had to clean off 
> the table before we dealt with the difficult problem of the lack of 
> democracy in the middle east. We kind of went into Iraq with the hopes 
> of a twofer, that is, we could get rid of Saddam, and have at least one 
> democratic yet arab country in the region to interact with.

If that's the case, WHY was a system of US-selected appointees selecting
appointees selecting appointees... etc. ... even put forward and seriously
CONSIDERED? I'm not talking about the present "interim" Iraqi government 
(although
that the current Iraqi president is obviously very beholden to the occupying
powers)... I'm actually talking about the proposed "democratic system" which
the US floated as a possibility in the media.

And WHY was this proposal dressed up as "democracy", when it clearly
was NOTHING of the kind?? Democracy, in this context, means one person one vote.
For every adult (who is not disqualified by being a felon or similar).
Anything which gives ordinary people zero votes, is by definition not democracy.

Such anti-democratic proposals, I suggest, can only be put forward by people 
who:

(a) do not think Iraqis are capable of handling democracy

or

(b) do not WANT Iraqis to have democracy [ ... *nods*, sounds about right]

or

(c) both

Yet, clearly, they want to decieve the American people (and the media colluded 
in
this, by misleadingly describing the proposals as "like caucases in US 
primaries")
into believing that the US wants democracy in Iraq.

> >In reality, the Afghanistan involvement probably is a necessary
> >tribute for gaining a permanent seat in the Security Council.
> 
>  Having a large enough military to matter, or providing enough foreign 
> aid to matter should be a necessary prerequisite for being on the 
> Security Council, not who won WWII.

Surely you mean the SC permanent members. Because the temporary seats
are held, at one time or another (they are rotated), by almost all the
worlds nations. (Maybe you were just rushed. I'll forgive the slight
inaccuracy.)

I understand your point that it's easier to vote for a policy if you
don't have to carry any of the cost, economic or military. However,
I believe the SC *is* still a "victor's club" and an anachronism. The
entire UN needs to be reformed and made more democratic. I kind of like
George Monbiot's proposals in "The Age of Consent".

Ultimately, the bias introduced by small countries who don't contribute
much, is *far* outweighed by the bias introduced by the vetos, bribery and 
bullying
of the US government - the world's biggest gangster. That's why I say
the UN needs to be more democratic, not more big-power-oriented.

>  What many US citizens feel is that Europeans have been skimping in 
> these two areas lately. If you don't want to spend the money on guns, 
> fine, we recognize that we have a large military partially for social 
> reasons

"Social reasons"?!? No, *imperial* reasons - but I wouldn't expect you to
understand that.

Here's a clue: the increased presence of military recruiters on college
campuses etc. of late is NOT part of a Bush "compassionate conservative"
programme to help young people by providing them with military jobs!
(As if!) Nor is it (unless they are extraordinarily ineffective)
a pointless PR exercise. It's for straight power reasons. Look into the
PNAC sometime.

>, but then you should be spending the equivalent on foreign aid 
> then. You live in the world too.

Gah.

I'm sorry. You're simply WRONG. Europe spends *more* per capita on foreign aid
than the US. The US is among the *stingiest* of developed country donors.
The left-leaning country Sweden is IIRC at the top of the list, per capita.

>  You're not going to like hearing this, but a widespread perception in 
> the US is that Europe wants to both not spend the money to be relevant, 
> while retaining veto power on US actions. That's not going to happen. 
> If Europe wants to be consulted, they'll have to spend the money.

Gah. If the US wants to be taken seriously as a multilateralist it'll have to
start actually providing the aid it promises, not offering money and then 
quietly dropping the ball later.

Do these ring a bell to you at all: "Forgotten" aid to afghanistan?

Multi-million dollar financial mismanagement in Iraq?

Shovelling money to Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton and neglecting
the actual reconstruction in Iraq?

Have you been reading the same news that I've been reading? No, of course not.

I may not think that Farenheight 9/11 was critical enough - from what I've heard
of it - but one thing it did apparently get right was to highlight the huge 
scale of
porkbarelling and corruption going on in Iraq. That's an absolute outrage, and
every American who knows what's going on in Iraq should be demanding answers
from their government on this.

> P.S.
> 
>   Fun Fact: The US Army is the only armed force in the world with a 
> "Civil Affairs" department specifically tasked with interacting with 
> civilians both friendly and hostile.
> 
>  This is relevant because more and more, its those sort of troops that 
> seem to be needed in the world.

Gah. Misrepresenting the reality, again. The US military doesn't have a 
reputation
for being the friendliest military in the world.
Just ask the British senior officers who openly criticised the "heavy-handed"
approach of the American forces in Iraq some months ago. I was amazed. Isn't 
that
sort of public criticism of a fellow ally and fellow occupying power almost
unprecedented?

Noam Chomsky notes that the US military have not historically been trained to 
deal
with "peacekeeping" missions at all. Maybe the "Civil Affairs" department is 
some
small attempt to redress that balance. I'd wager it's not enough, and I'd wager
the US military has not been very reoriented towards peacekeeping because that 
is
not what their imperial masters WANT them doing.

Again, if you doubt my claim that the US is an imperial power, re-read my 
questions
above on democracy in Iraq. Check out PNAC, as I suggested. Also try the Empire 
Notes
weblog sometime. You might find it opens your eyes.

-- 
Robin

pgprB6TP_70sD.pgp
Description: PGP signature