freedom? democracy? or u.s. global capital interests?

[mnaz]

on the following-- agree? disagree? comments? questions?

the u.s. comes down on anyone who doesn't play ball with its global capital interests. that's basically the way it works, with few exceptions. it generally has very little to do with pure ideology, or "freedom and democracy." if that were the case, the u.s. wouldn't support (and even arm) so many totalitarian regimes for such long time periods as it suits the agenda, as it has throughout its history, and it wouldn't run places like guantanamo and bagram and those secret prisons in eastern europe, and it wouldn't send paramilitary riot goons to violently crush peaceful assembly, and it wouldn't pass legislation like the "militarily-detain-and-hold-without-charge" law that obama recently signed.

let's look at some examples:

saddam played ball when he made war on iran in the '80s (our rebellious petro-client state), and then he didn't play ball-- and a few years later, no more saddam.

bin laden played ball when he made holy war against the russians, and then he and his cohorts turned on the other meddling superpower (us)-- and a few years later, no more bin laden (although bush & co. apparently preferred to leave him at large, lurking, issuing threats, lest we lose our zeal for the "war on terror").

noriega played ball-- great. then, noriega didn't play ball-- no more noriega.

when gaddhafi re-opened libyan oil to the west (and "renounced terrorism"), things suddenly got cozy, and the west even sent him some toys. still, he had that bothersome track record, and when he talked about hiking oil lease terms (supposedly to help pay for lockerbie reparations-- though we now have doubts as to libya's guilt), france and italy were not amused, and france in particular was reconnoitering prospects for regime change in 2010, even before the "arab spring," a phenomenon which gave the rest of nato a perfect chance jump in and get rid of the guy once and for all.

batista, the despot, played ball with u.s. interests in cuba, and got military and economic support. castro, the despot, did not play ball with said interests, and got military attack and economic sanctions-- for over fifty years!

karzai's regime in afghanistan plays ball (well, just enough, at least) with the interests, so it gets propped up, despite the fact that it has legislated some sharia aspects of "women as property" into law, and despite widespread torture in afghan prisons and unimaginable corruption and theft of western support resources.

hugo chavez does not play ball with the interests, and guess what? there are some who claim a cia coup attempt was made in 2002, although i'm not sure if this has ever been confirmed. certainly would fit the pattern however.

and we do see a pattern here, right?

meanwhile, saudi arabia plays ball, and is a valuable ally, despite an atrocious human rights record. same goes for egypt-- well, mubarak's egypt, at least.

bahrain is a totalitarian state-- one which received personal congrats from the u.s. secretary of defense after violently crushing its own "arab spring" demonstrations. because bahrain plays ball with the interests.

even iran, when it played ball under the despotic shah, was just fine with us, despite the abuses.

in chile, the democratically- elected allende didn't play ball, and he had to be taken out. but the brutal pinochet played ball, so he was just fine with us.

the list goes on. you get the idea. and all of these authoritarian, totalitarian-type states that are on our side--- we certainly don't seem too paranoid and endlessly vindictive about them, do we? ....

and yes, i'm aware that the usual standby response to all of these troublesome observations (and more) would of course be one long, giant "ends will justify all of these means" ....

interesting and pertinent comment i read yesterday: it remains to be seen just how this "arab spring" movement, should it continue to grow, will be able to coexist with the western drive for dominant influence in the middle east.

[Arcadia]

the third one, of course!. Good rumination, mnaz!!!!!

what still amazed me somehow is the (at least apparent) conviction in all the government representations of the USA (including Obama) in affirm the two first ones with a smile or a kind of stone-face according the opportunity ... I´m also amazed (& sicked) when persons who in my country twenty years ago were for privatization and for solding for nothing our country or just for being comfortably silent and obsecuent cómplices now are fervents nationalizaters and dictates catedra about soberanía and anti-imperialism ... but I always had problems with what I felt as an injustice -in all orders of life- (not that I would change my mind at all...!), but I have to work with the feelings that all that jazz produces in me ... just my peso (the cents don´t value nothing at the moment here ... )

[stilltrucking]

Thomas Jefferson said:

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

by Non Sum » December 24th, 2009, 7:23 pm

[mnaz]

wow, jack. that seems an unusual quote from jefferson. i was under the impression that he rarely invoked "God" in his discourse... interesting...

and arcadia, are you talking about the ypf oil nationalization? yeah, cristina really pissed off a lot of big capitalistas on that one-- cuidadoso! so most argentinians favored privatization, and now, barely 20 years later, they want the government to step in? that's an amazing turnaround. maybe they are smarter than americans--- or at least more resistant to corporatist propaganda ...

anyway, here's where i'm coming from with a big, long rambling post like above, which may seem overly negative to some people.... when you post as many "yeah, but what about this" sort of comments as i do, you can be seen as a naysayer. i'm actually grateful to live in the american west, and i see a lot of good there, despite my various protestations. i grew up with very black-and-white views of good western democracy vs. evil totalitarian socialism-- not without some justification. and i was told very plainly that only they resort to propaganda.

i think as the '70s and '80s came on, a little more recognition set in about the sins and aggression of "the west" as well, post-vietnam. but even then, it could all be "justified" by the cold war. the other side was so much worse than us, and a mortal "threat to our way of life" (that sounds familiar). and again, there was some veracity to this p.o.v., considering the poor track record of totalitarian communist states earlier in the century. but as time went on, how far could the aging cold war and they-are-so-much-worse-than-us "justifications" be pushed?

and then, after the cold war, when it seemed our covert operations, which were bad enough, might give way to more overt militarism (large troop deployments) in pursuit of our never-ending "interests," that's when our policy-makers really started to lose me (or maybe i just started paying more attention).

anyway . . . i'm sure you can find plenty of folks who disagree with my p.o.v., and who swear that what has happened in the last decade or two or three is-- in the end-- the best way forward for humanity. yes, the world really does need to be conquered and made suitable for total capitalism, by whatever means necessary. that would be the counter-p.o.v. to mine . . .

[stilltrucking]

I miss non sum, he was one of the great trollers of studio eight.

Is God just? I don't think justice is an attribute of the divinity. Not any justice that I can get my primate brain around.

I am not much on philosophy, don't know nothing about Plato, but I think the idea of justice, concept of justice is an attribute of the human nervous system.

I try to not be a nay sayer about our country, but I am getting pretty frigging cynical in my old age about how justice comes down here these days.

I am not proud of my cynicism just trying to be honest. I can not bring myself to embrace the "politics of sin, cynicism and despair"

[mnaz]

I try to not be a nay sayer about our country, but I am getting pretty frigging cynical in my old age about how justice comes down here these days.

unfortunately, me too. at times. damn near impossible to avoid it entirely . . .

[stilltrucking]

Sorry I was editing while you were posting.

Everyday it seems I loose some little piece of America that I was proud of because of that guy who was president before Obama. Do you remember his name? Funny how you never hear his name mentioned by the republican candidates when they speak of "a failed presidency"

I can get by with a little cynicism but I try to avoid "self loathing". Which is counter-productive

Even though I feel like an ex-patriot in the promised land, I too want to do my bit towards the relief of man's estate too.

"Inheriting from the Protestant tradition a conscience which insisted that intellectual work should be directed toward the relief of man's estate,...." Life Against Death"

[Arcadia]

that's an amazing turnaround ... yeah, maybe! ... in forty years I lived several turnarounds happened in my country -we did already more than twice the 360º- let´s continue playing, why not?

[Steve Plonk]

As we all should know, all countries have their own national interests & propaganda. The trick is to get the United Nations & other countries to
cooperate so all may benefit. That is when diplomacy comes in handy.
When other countries buy into a country's national mindset, then progress
may come to the countries in question. It's a cruel world, but sometimes
gentle persuasion comes in handy in times of disaster.

The so-called "Arab Spring" is a fiasco. There is nothing but squabbling taking
place between various warlords & factional splinter groups. Whom do we trust!?
Only the junta in each place gets the food & only the junta knows where the
missing people are. They know where all the graves are.

The same sad situation is happening in a sad country in our locale called Haiti...
Only massive aid & internal assistance will help these folks have a chance
to survive. Right now, Haiti is a failed state.

[mnaz]

yes steve. and chomsky has some explanations for that...

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/15 ... ab_spring/

don't have time to quote from it right now, but as far as the "arab spring" goes-- it's indeed a complex emerging phenomenon, but from the standpoint of america (which is vying for preeminent influence in the region), the gist of it is--- america couldn't give two hoots about "democracy and freedom" in the arab world. america wants to deal only with regimes which buy into its global corporate/capital structure. and the rest must be marginalized, starved out or replaced. that's the "short course."

[mnaz]

see also, this:
http://studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22870