President Bush plans to sell $20 billion of advanced military hardware to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf states, and provide more aid to Israel threatens to further destabilize the region and fuel religion-based terrorism.
And loookie here, American Atheists speaks out against it. Those damn atheists, why can't they just shut the fuck up and let all those good, pious religious people destroy our planet?
When will we stop sticking our nose in the business of other nations? Maybe when we curtail our need to stop sucking on those big middle eastern oil titties?
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Heck, CSM, you know this is how we've been doing this in just about every 'unstable' part of the world for decades. Step 1- Decide which of a batch of unpalatable rulers is the least unpalatable and court them to the hilt, in order to keep the others weak. Step 2- When it becomes painfully obvious just how stupid that was we feel obligated to go invade said country and 'liberate' its people from the villain we've been supporting. Ideally capture the head jerk and bring him back here to be tried. Step 3- Then we sell goods to everyone else in the area, apparently in the hope they'll reduce their own numbers and save us some trouble. Or else trying to show them all we're not as hostile to them all as they think we are. Or something. Step 4- When things go into full chaos, we step in to 'help restore order'.
An interesting adjunct to this story was one report I have read concerning the Russians. To start off with the Russians have been long time friends and armers of India and of course India and Pakistan aren't on very friendly terms.
As the story goes, Russia was selling to the Chinese jet engines which the Chinese were putting into a new jet fighter the Chinese have designed and built, but the Chinese weren't just building the planes for their own forces, they were planning to export them for cold hard cash. And who had lined up for the fighter, that's right, the Pakistanis. Once the Russians found out who the end user was going to be, they reneged on the jet engine deal with China. Russia is doing it's best to block any moves by the U.S.(the fucking Cold War is back on folks, thanks in part to dipshit Bush) and our overtures to the Indians(civilian nuclear deal, joint anti-terrorist efforts) rankle the Russians and the Russians didn't think they could afford to alienate the Indians, so they nixed the deal(even though the Russians could always use the cash, armaments are the third biggest moneymaker for the Russians behind energy and mining). Ain't geopolitics fun!
Yep. Just hysterical.
What is funny is that you believe the 'enemy' is 'out there'. Before you go pointing fingers you might be further ahead to look at the USA's relationship to those 'oil titties'. From K Street lobbyists to election funding to 'no bid contracts' (Iraq & NO). There is no quick peripheral fix; this has become a systemic problem that you'd rather not look at.
Hey derF... not sure I follow you. What enemy do you think "I believe is 'out there'"?
And I agree that there is a systemic problem. Seems to me that we have elected officials beholden to special interests, one of which is the oil industry. So we stay in bed with Middle Eastern countries and arm them to the teeth.
Solution?
What I was addressing was an inclination to externalize the cause of our problems. Though we may have conflicts with the Russians or the Middle East, it does not follow that the source of those problems are either Russian or Middle Eastern. (I have a suspicion the the 'blame America first' phrase is is going to surface now) However, there are specific 'legal entities' within American society who, though they are not bound to the same limitations as our people, have come to be viewed by the US government as vital. This may have been true when they actually provided work with a 'living wage' for Americans but that justification is less relevant with each passing day.
When our government climbs into bed with the tyrants of the world, it is not because they are irresistibly attractive. It is because those same tyrants are already in bed with our 'vital interests'. The uncomfortable 'manage a' trois' that follows profits someone but it does so at the expense of our principles, our international image and our national treasury.
Solution?
I see a solution but it is not a simple, easy one. Still, it becomes more difficult with each day that the expatriation of American wealth is encouraged to continue. Isolationist? No, not really. I just don't believe that there is anyone else we can rely on to put this matter to rights.
A democracy, representative or otherwise, can not stand within an unregulated corporatocrasy. Campaign funding reform, K-Street regulation (you would be surprised by how many professional lobbyists are also intimate family members to your congressional representative), regulating corporate media by limiting its centralized ownership, cleaning both houses of co-opted representatives prior to fumigating them and then new corporate legislation, written by citizens.
derf,
I realize it won't be easy or simple, but what exactly IS your solution.
And now a question, who was blaming others for our folly? Was it the deleted posts(which I didn't get a chance to read). When I reread the posts I could read, I failed to see anyone making excuses for our piece of the world.
What I see, Bawdy, is an article that illustrates how the US military/industrial complex has come to promote actions that are in the interests of neither the American people or their kith and kin currently stationed in the Middle-East. That article was followed by obfuscation. It came in the form of addressing oil interests in that area as ‘Middle-Eastern’ and referring to the deteriorating relationship between the USA and the Russian Federation as a renewed ‘Cold War’.
These are not new representations. I’ve seen this interpretation of current events promoted over recent months by the corporate media my self. However, to accept this perception one must first be willing to sacrifice history to convenience.
Those ‘Middle-Eastern oil titties’ are no more native to that area than are the European style monarchies that govern our client states in the area. In fact, most of those royal houses rose to prominence precisely because of their willingness to kowtow to the trans-national interests that currently control oil resources in the area.
The renewed ‘Cold War’ is a resurrection that is more appropriately attributed to the proposal for missile bases in recently annexed Eastern European states along the Russian border.
In MHO both of these misrepresentations create ‘external threats’ that further justify this year’s 400 billion dollar in supplements to an already swollen military budget.
derf,
First, my post from the 27th was not intended as an obfuscation and I am sorry you took it that way. My point was that we are not alone in arming the world and that these situations can become extremely complex.
Second, I attribute Russia's antagonistic attitude with the West as starting with our complicity in the colored revolutions(Orange, Rose, etc)as we helped NGO's strip away countries from Russia's sphere of influence. The Ukraine was the last straw for them and now they are hopping mad. The missle defense system you talk of is just another step down this path of lunacy on our part which really started years ago.
Which brings me to a couple of questions for you? Since I have brought Russia into this conversation, do you find Russia's style of running their energy complex better or worse than our capitalistic model? Secondly, what solution have you formulated for the problems outlined in this thread which both csm and I have asked you for?
Viewing the Ukraine as the ‘last straw’, that is funny. Thanks for keeping your sense of humor.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the world around us was only affected by our ‘good intentions’? In many ways it would relieve us of responsibility for our actions. However, for such an occurrence to take place we must presume the presence of an overarching arbiter. An arbiter able and willing to sort though all intentions and actions; then deciding from among them which is truly ‘good’ enough to give effect.
What if we were trapped in a cave? Wouldn’t the limitations of that cave influence our perception of the world we live in? Further, wouldn’t this altered perception affect our ability to formulate ‘good intentions’?
If that cave were arraigned in such a way as to distort the conditions of our existence, would it even be possible for us to have ‘good intentions’ in the larger sense? Wouldn’t the confusion of our environment be reflected in those intentions?
Capital is a social construct. It is the currency to which we ascribe value. That constructed value comes, through the currency’s use, to represent items that have intrinsic value. These items have existence and value beyond the sphere of capital. Foundationally, capital only exists to ascribe relative value for the purpose of trade.
Prior to Western colonialism’s hegemony, many other systems of currency existed globally. With the advance of this practice’s control, however, many systems and structures – banking, investment firms, and industrial agriculture – were exported to facilitate an efficient transfer of value to colonial occupiers. These systems and structures were all heavily front-loaded in order to accomplish their task.
America’s own ‘founding fathers’ took issue with this arrangement when they confronted the East India Company over the control a government mandated tea tax transferred.
The Russian Revolution was another example of peoples reacting against this system of imperialism. The Russian people were, like the Americans before them, responding to a system of control that for them had become untenable. Again, like the Americans before them, they embarked, courageously, towards the ‘undiscovered country’. Unfortunately for them, none of us lives in a vacuum. The first thing they encountered was a form of Royalist militaristic resistance that lasted far beyond the end of the First World War. Merely to survive, they were forced to internalize this aspect of imperialism. In order to trade with the imperial world beyond their borders they had to internalize other systems and structures. As I said, they were forced into unknown territory as they attempted to escape an unbearable situation. What arose was unexpected, just as I doubt America’s Founding Fathers expected their progeny would become the military arm of modern-day East India Companies.
If you want others to be happy... use compassion.
If you want yourself to be happy... use compassion.
Post a Comment