George Galloway 1 - 0 Senate [BBC news link]

Remove all ads!

I apologize in advance for the off-topicness...

Kindof an exaggeration, no? Kissinger dishonestly backed fascists in Argentina and Chile, extended the Vietnam war for politcal gain, sold out the East Timorese (gaining the support of the Islamists!), etc etc etc. Your accusation against Bush hinges on one country alone, Iraq (or perhaps two, if you count Afghanistan), along with pressure put on other countries (Iran, Syria, and yes, even Saudi Arabia). Europe has also put pressure on these countries, and in fact, Europe even recognizes the gov'ts of Iraq and Afghanistan as legitimate. Is Europe similarly engaged in "war crimes" by supporting a puppet gov't against the will of its people? Perhaps Galloway *is* a hero (to get briefly on topic) then, for advocating sedition in the Brit army...

So what's the argument going to be? The US should flex it's might around the world stamping out despotism (ala Team America: World Police) so it's not accused of being selective, or is it that the US should have respected national sovereignty in all cases, from Iraq to Uzbekistan, as these dictatorships are obviously the will of the people, and hey, if they really wanted to get rid of authoritarian rule they would. You can say that the US has been selfish in only going after dictatorships they don't have an "arrangement" with (actually, name me one State gov't that doesn't act in self-interest), but it doesn't make sense to me that the only US foreign policy options you support are 1) waging global war against authoritarianism, or 2) staying at home and playing nice.

Actually, that was at one event, and the actual total would be much higher. Of course, the US was playing realpolitik at the time and supporting Iraq against Iran. But I suppose you are saying that because the US played realpolitik once, they have no moral right to ever seek to address this? Seems like nonsense to me. Europe was also doing quite well for itself selling arms to the Iran-Iraq war. Actually, anyone who ever does any business with an authoritarian regime is supporting the regime. Certainly, there are elements of hypocrisy here, but c'mon, this is politics, and it's been like this under Democrats too.

As for the Iraq death toll, I agree that it's shameful how the US has played down the civilian death toll. At the same time, I think it's disingenuous to attribute all of the killings resulting from the insurgency to the US: "the US knew the country was run by murderous thugs, and should have known these guys wouldn't have given up without a fight; therefore the US should have just left the murderous thugs in power, and by stirring up the hornet's nest, they should assume the blame." Again, doesn't make sense to me.

If you recall, the credit card give away was supported by plenty of Democrats (and Lieberman should just become a Repub and get it over with). I also agree that Republican economic policy has been a disaster, but like it or not, Clinton was around for the blowing of the equity bubble, and his support of the credit card, healthcare, banking, etc etc industries weren't in the end so far removed from what's going on today. In many cases, the actual policies have remained the same, even as Bush has made huge, heavily publicized blunders, generally by ignoring people compitent in policy in favor of demogogery.

But I'm afraid the economy would have gone bad under a liberal gov't as well; the 90s stock market was unsustainable, and equity bubbles tend to have big fallouts. They would have, however, done much better than Bush (tho how much is debatable, as they would have prolonged Greenspan's policy of trying to keep the bubbles going by injecting huge amounts of liquidity). But the cynical side of me takes some comfort in knowing that Bush will likely be blamed for the coming economic meltdown, thus allowing more progressive legislation to be passed (such as, say, some kind of national healthcare).

And I don't think that housing is necessarily a safe investment either, but that's another thread.

As for foreign policy: again, I agree the Bush admin has been arrogant and incompetent, and that they've done themselves alot of unnecessary damage. I also am incredibly annoyed by the gov't propaganda, jingoism, stupid car magnets, and the like. But this doesn't prima facie discredit all rationales for the war, does it? In fact, I remember Kerry, who I voted for, trying as hard as he could to wrap himself in the flag; is this not propaganda as well? Does this discredit all of his policy positions as well?

Aside from the "war on terror" issue, Hitchens claimed to be closest on the issues to Nader, so I don't think he's unaware of these things. He's also written very harsh things about the Saudis and Wahhabis -- I mean, this is the guy who coined the term Islamo-fascist, IIRC. Apparently, the US *is* putting pressure on gov'ts like Saudi and Uzbekistan to reform, and this likely would have been done by both Dems and Repubs (tho more effectively by Dems, IMO).

It seems to me, Chandos, that you are arguing that the Iraq war is *the defining issue* that separates Left from Right. I strongly disagree. In the last election, the Dems and Repubs fell over eachother trying to say who was stronger against terrorism, and who supported the troops more. The Dems would have still been in Iraq, but claimed that they would have been more effective in marshalling a coalition, and in diplomacy. Actually, I agree. But I think you sidestep the issue of how being, say, pro-democracy for the Kurds, would affect your view of the war in Iraq (regardless of how terribly it's been run).

 

And let's not forget Charles Taylor: more on "oil and democracy" around the world:

Anyone surprised?

(sorry, I'm getting a bit off topic here). I have to moderate myself and suggest of new thread...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050516/16taylor.htm

[ May 23, 2005, 19:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Don't understand the reference. Because May wrote about places he had never been? Because Hitler enjoyed reading May?

As for oil and democracy (which mix together like...), of course it almost always distorts healthy politics; hey, I'll support any decent idea that reduces our need for oil.

Edit: Ahh, I get it: is it that the Kurds are treated as the "good noble savages" by the US, and you are suggesting some kind of post-colonial spin, whereby the Kurds are obviously lacking in national self-awareness, acting as puppets of their US masters, while the herioc Sunnis are fighting imperialism by blowing up Shia civilians? Or should I send a post- post- colonialist spin back at you: why does the fact the the Kurds largely supported the war, and are largely living in peace in the north of Iraq, make you reflexively think that they are lesser human beings?

[ May 23, 2005, 19:47: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

Bion - Ralph Nader has never supported the war in Iraq. And you are right in your criticsm of the Democrats. While true that I did vote for Kerry in the last election, I'm still not a Democrat. In truth, I voted "against" Bush. But I agree with you: the Democrats are not very liberal.

But may we now return to the topic at hand?

 

Well, I think that Bush and his crew have shot themselves in the knee when they decided to abandon the rule of law and to invent things like Gitmo or extraordinary rendition.

I have always thought that one of the sharpest swords the US have morally is due process.

They threw it away because it took them too long.

What I actually, in my naivete, expected Bush to do when he declared 'war on tyranny' was something like stop cooperating with torture states, stop deporting people, stop paying them. I then expected him to embargo someone like Karimov, cut diplomatic relations, pressure him - but he has just the same status as South America's strongmen a la Pinochet - a US proxy who offers services against a US target group.

Now that the initial zeal is worn off, Bush's policy is no less opportunistic and ruthless as Kissingers', just more dillettantic, and betrays it's high minded declared goals.

I absolutely expect the US to try to 'play Iraq', to sell one of the three parties in Iraq, to also 'appease' some 'Islamists', in case of the Kurds, perhaps also Turkish nationalists.

 

Ah... no...

Rather why cashing in on ethnic differences and animosities? And putting a Karl May spin on it ? The enemy of one's enemy is only so long one's enemy as the first enmity exists. And than leave, after having played them against eachother and deepend the trenches of their conflict.

I personally think it is just no good to take sides in an ethnical conflict far away. Ethnical conflicts are all messy and dirty and there is no right or wrong.

Do you prefer Macedonians over Serbs or Albanians over Croats ? Do like Sunnis more than Kurds and Kurds more than Shites ? Or St.Gall more than Zürich ? Why would you take sides in an ethnical conflict and paint some better than others ?

And since when are Kurds lacking in national-self-awarenes?

And the peace question. They live in peace since they agreed a cease fire to focus on matters of higher priority. They are part of the powderkeg like anyone else.

Edit: I was posting this while the moderator message came.

Edit2: Just a small thing -> is it that the Kurds are treated as the "good noble savages" by the US No. I thought the were treated like romantic noble savages by the author you posted your link to and by you.

[ May 23, 2005, 20:34: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Well, in order to respond, I guess I must partially be on topic: I will happily concede the benefits of British parlimentary training -- i.e., the ability to engage in spontaneous public debate with (almost) no holds barred -- against the American system of selecting politicians through TV spots canned speeches, which allow embarassing public speakers to be elected to the highest office of the land. Certainly Galloway put forward quite a performance, and it certainly flabbergasted Norm Coleman. There's some amusement to be found there, definitely. But whether that translates to a meaningful political exchange, I'm not sure.

As for ethnicity in Iraq, of course it's an issue. The elite of the country was Sunni Arab for a long, long time, and now there's a great deal of resentment all around. The question at this stage is, how can all the various groups in Iraq come together to produce a working representative gov't....

 

'Meaningful political exchange'?! Certainly not, I do not expect them to make an issue out of violations of the sanctions that were known to the serving Bush and Clinton administrations - who did nothing to prevent it and looked the other way.

The Senate Permanent Subcomittee on Investigations made Oil-for-Food an issue for the sole purpose to discredit the UN over the oil for food scandal - the guys who put it up want the UN dead.

That is, the result of their efforts was clear even before they started working.