Wow! Halle-fucking-lujah! Sadly, No! now has the preview facility to beat all preview facitities. I’ll even sink so low as to say “Dude!. It is just soooo cooool, dude.”

We should have a bet on whether the Dems will stand up to Bush on this funding issue, Brad. Loser has to shave their eyebrows and dye their hair pink. Whaddaya say? 😉

America has always been a quasi-imperial power. We’re not the purse-snatchers or the gang members of the imperial crimeworld – we’re the mafioso of the imperial crimeworld: “Nice country you have here. Be a shame if something happened to it….why don’t you let us help you out with protection?”.

But for those who fail to understand this, our current actions in the Middle East seem somehow out of character. They aren’t – it’s just that we currently have a president with all the subtlety of a block of Limburger cheese.

Jillian has said just about everything I’d like to say on this issue, but rather more eloquently. Tonight I feel as intelligent as that block of Limburger cheese.

Honestly, how dumb are some of these people? Really? The honestly seem to believe all that bullshit they spout, about some mythological America that bears the same relation to the real one as Albion does to Engerland.

I’d have thought that most people would have gotten over believing in pixies by the time they were allowed pens instead of crayons. But apparently not.

Oh, addendum: shave their eyebrows, dye their hair pink, and run naked around the Capitol building 20 times. Possibly with bells attached to any dangly bits.

For fook’s sake.

During the cold war, charges of U.S. imperialism in Korea and Vietnam were false. Those wars were about superpower struggles.

And what, pray tell, Mr. Alter, were those struggles over, hmmmmm? Maybe, I dunno, IMPERIAL CONTROL??!!!??!!

Look, it’s America discussing military strategy with the UK!

I worked at a Canadian military base in the 1970’s and one day we were all excused from our desk jobs to go see an important half-hour documentary film from the US.

I wish I could remember the name of it, but it must have been inspired or perhaps even financed by the Rumsfeld/Cheney “Team B” of the 1970’s.

The film purported to prove that the Soviets were engaged in a massive but secret naval buildup so that they could cut off our vital flow of oil, and that every citizen should demand that his elected representative vote for bigger military budgets so that western nations could have a similar naval buildup.

Of course, now that Soviet-era documents have been de-classified, we find that the massive naval buildup was just a rightwing delusion.

But that shit about protecting the vital oil pipeline… the wingnuts obviously haven’t given up on that.

Sadly, they’re eventually going to piss off all the other oil-producing nations from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela so that eventually the only place the US will have left to shop for oil is going to be its #1 present supplier— Canada.

Perhaps someday, Americans will realize the repercussions of the mentality that says, we can’t do what we want, when we want, how we want, and to hell with everyone else…

Even with preview I screwed up. Should be we can do what we want.

Actually, I would bet you that Alter has done a good deal more than reluctant to embrace the notion that oil is the over-riding strategic as opposed to tactical goal in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I bet you that he has outright sneered at those who suggested this, and insulted the simplicity of their mindsets, and probably on occasion said some aside including the derisive terms “Chomsky” and whatever else Good Liberals use to indicate that they ain’t one a’ them thur crazy leftists.

Actually, I would bet you that Alter has done a good deal more than be reluctant to embrace the notion that oil is the over-riding strategic as opposed to tactical goal in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I bet you that he has outright sneered at those who suggested this, and insulted the simplicity of their mindsets, and probably on occasion said some aside including the derisive terms “Chomsky” and whatever else Good Liberals use to indicate that they ain’t one a’ them thur crazy leftists.

Oops — sorry about that double posting there.

Yeah, fuck Alter. He’s fine with dubbing this one little-bitty thing somewhat reminiscent of the tendencies of imperialism, but he’s too damn wussy to even make that blindingly obvious, half-assed observation without wrapping it in an apologia for historical American adventurism.

And by the way, no charges of US imperialism in Vietnam were proven “false,” unless by “imperialism” you mean that the US wanted in Vietname what Britain did in Nigeria, say.

Every piece of available evidence suggests that the US foreign policy establishment early on decided what sort of Vietnam they wished to exist, where its material would go, who would run it, what sort of international ties it would have, and by the way, the US had the right to kill as many millions of them as it wished, and as many millions of their neighbors as it wished, to ensure that it would be the US’ foreign policy establishment determining all these aspects of Vietnamese existence, and not the Vietnamese.

Now, if you think that somehow it gives you Big Britches to call this Not-Imperialism, that’s fine, but to be so backwards, retarded, and infantile to miss the clear imperial level of domination in that, you’ve got a great deal of maturing to do.

Also, you have to be a real idiot to read the actual history of what went on and when someone said that they did something because of “the Russians” or because of “the Chinese” to both (a) take them at their word, and (b) not aim to have a real definition of what they meant by “the Russians.”

When you have a declassified record of US foreign policy initiatives, and many times throughout that history “Communism”, against which everybody in the US said they were fighting and never ever ever ever for any sort of unfair domination of anybody else, is either not defined or when it is defined it turns out to be any sort of government you don’t control and which seems to aim to do things for its own peoples’ interests over the US’ interest, then if you have half a brain you learn that “Communism” or “the Russians” or “the Chinese” or anything else is just a substitute magical phrase which means “not the way We want things.”

All you have to do is ask one elementary question in most cases.

If the US war against Vietnam were only a matter of super-power rivalry, why didn’t we do the rational thing and step up to Ho Chi Minh and say, hey, you all establish the kind of government you want and we’ll help you, we’ll be your ally, we’ll be your trading partner.

Done. That’s it. End of story. No war. New ally. Independent and thriving nation instead of charnel house for slaughter by the US and its puppet allies. No nation dominated by the Soviets.

No, but I forget, Alter is Smarter Than Me because he has personally talked to many of these historical figures and They Have Told Him that any notion of “imperialism” is wrong because They Were Only Fighting the Soviets.

Please. Talk down to someone else, child.

Imperialism, whiskey, sexy!

Oh, addendum: shave their eyebrows, dye their hair pink, and run naked around the Capitol building 20 times. Possibly with bells attached to any dangly bits.

We’re saving that for Rove, Cheney, and certain other current occupants of the West Wing. Just before we ship them to the Hague, of course.

And we’re scared of China. Very scared.

But for those who fail to understand this, our current actions in the Middle East seem somehow out of character.

Actually, they ARE out of character. Not from a goal standpoint, but from a methodology standpoint. The US has historically embraced an Imperial foreign policy, to deny that is to be simply unaware of history. But in most cases, the US used soft power rather than military intervention, because the political leadership prior to our current idiot in chief were aware that military action was unpredictable, and could very easily go sideways on you.

The US postwar power projection model was typically more along the lines of Iran 1953 than Iraq 2003. And the world genuinely believed the mythology of the unstoppable US military. Because the US seldom took the risk of exposing the fundamental weakness of a military only strategy. It really is a long stretch from the velvet-over-steel “diplomacy” of “nice little country you got here…” to a full blown, no stopping us invasion.

No, the bush/cheney cabal is a sea-change in US imperial doctrine. By invading countries out of choice and publicly acknowledging torture, renditions and permanent internment, they have ended the fairly effective playacting and demonstrated for all what the US is about, and the things it’s leadership are willing to do to protect economic power and corporate profits…

mikey

We’re not going to be the big shot forever. All great nations eventually fade, and it’s going to happen to us to, despite what the wingers would like to think. Some Empires (Britain) recognized this before it was to late, and left the former colonies in relative good will. Some Empires, though are destroyed violently by the former victims of their rule.

Just pontificating out my ass, but I think it’s something to think about.

If the US war against Vietnam were only a matter of super-power rivalry, why didn’t we do the rational thing and step up to Ho Chi Minh and say, hey, you all establish the kind of government you want and we’ll help you, we’ll be your ally, we’ll be your trading partner.

Dude, you didn’t even need to do that. Ho Chi Minh came to you first and said “Hey, help us get ridda the French”.

Can you imagine how much different the 20th century would have been if Wilson had paid attention?

It’s going to work out as well for the US in Iraq as it did for theFrench in Indo-China…

If the US war against Vietnam were only a matter of super-power rivalry, why didn’t we do the rational thing and step up to Ho Chi Minh and say, hey, you all establish the kind of government you want and we’ll help you, we’ll be your ally, we’ll be your trading partner.

El Cid, there would have been no need for that, because Ho Chi Minh actually admired America, and tried to contact the Dear Leader Du Jour. He was rebuffed, which meant that he was then forced to seek help elsewhere. And the rest is history.

We’re not going to be the big shot forever. All great nations eventually fade, and it’s going to happen to us to, despite what the wingers would like to think.

Gundamhead, what’s most likely, at least at the moment, is economic collapse. The US government is squandering the wealth of the country on weapons and tax cuts, and while the debt is being shouldered by China, there is undoubtedly a point beyond which China will not go. They’re already starting to diversify their basket, I think, as are other countries. US dollars are not such a guaranteed investment these days.

The other possibility is that the USians themselves decide enough is enough, and shoehorn the Bush junta out in favour of some more moderate administration. And I use the term “moderate” carefully: I mean moderate compared to the current gang of idiots, not compared to the rest of the world. You guys are so far out in Rabid Foaming Righty Land that normal folk can hardly see you. Strange, considering that polls suggest (I hate that phrase) that most Americans are actually quite progressive. But you get the government that, well, somebody else wanted.

The United States passed on several chances to live up to its principles and support an independent Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh tried to take American anti-colonialist rhetoric at face value after World War I (Wilson’s Fourteen Points) and World War II (Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter and was ignored both times. The US funded the Viet Minh’s resistance against the Japanese during World War II. Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Independence was modeled on the American one. The US decided to back France instead, and ended up providing most of the funding and equipment for France’s war. When the Vietnamese beat the French, the US had its last chance to live up to its rhetoric, but we chose war instead.

Economic collapse is a certainty. This level of deficit spending coupled with the trade deficits and the service economy, the rising entitlements and debt service, and fer crissake STILL RISING military spending that is already greater than the next 40 nations COMBINED is utterly unsustainable. The fucking AMAZING thing is that it’s political suicide to say so. If they want to get elected or re-elected, our leadership has to go along pretending that there is not a looming hard crash. This is INSANE. Right now, today, it at least MIGHT not be too late. But nobody’s gonna do anything. We’ll build weapons and tanks and ships and planes and bombers and prisons right up until it all implodes.

Look, there are a lot of survivalist loons out there, and they do some crazy shit. But if you’re under forty, you need to start thinking seriously about this. You don’t need to go crazy, but think about what you need to have and what you might need to do to take care of your friends and family when it all just grinds to a halt. You need food, fuel, weapons and mobility. It’s like preparing for an earthquake or hurricane, except there’s two big differences. First, help is NOT coming in a week or so. There is no help. It will just keep getting worse. Second, if you are in a city or immediate suburbs, you are a target. People are going to kill you and take your shit. Your plan needs to include getting out of that 150 mile radius from any good sized city.

You ought to have at least a basic grasp on how to kill, clean and skin an animal, purify water and set a defensible perimeter. First aid skills. If you know how to plant a garden and fix a motor, all the better. If you have friends who won’t laugh at you, talk about it with them. Make a pool of money to buy supplies, weapons and negotiables like gold.

Look at it this way. If it never happens, it was a good, if slightly embarrassing exercise. If you don’t do it and the whole thing slides off the rails, you’re going to die hard, and that’s no use to the tribe. At least think about it, ok?

mikey

Thanks to those who clarified Ho Chi Minh’s initiative (and yet another example of people domestically and internationally who believed the US’ high flying rhetoric about WWII being about freedom for everyone, not just Yurrup). I was aware of it, and just thought I’d skip the historical context, but the point is even stronger. You can run the same scenario with Cuba, or Nicaragua, or the Congo, you name it. (Not to mention the precedent-setting case for WWII: Spain.) We instead had our foreign policy big heads run rampant and blame it all on the Soviets, or Chinese, or Communism, or whatever Big Enemy was sufficient to throw the super-moral journalists off scent.

Point being, though, re Alter is that We Weren’t Imperialist.

All that our foreign policy establishment wanted to do was completely dominate the entire world and choose the type, purpose, and form of government in every nation on the planet, and make sure that their existence primarily served to enrich our investors.

There’s nothing imperialist about that, is there?

And by the way, if you think so, you’re just a weird freaky lefty-head who shouldn’t ever be allowed near real journalist folk, because we’re so smart and rational and have done such, such a bang-up job throughout history of keeping our nation out of foolish and immoral foreign entanglements.

I think the “realist” view that Iraq was all about the oil (will they admit Michael Moore was right, next?) is shaping up as the conventional wisdom view of the non-conservative pundits.

Take a look at what Ted Koppel said on NPR on Thursday. His conclusion is:

Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.

…

Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you’ll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you’ll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future.

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=690

The US funded the Viet Minh’s resistance against the Japanese during World War II. Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Independence was modeled on the American one. The US decided to back France instead, and ended up providing most of the funding and equipment for France’s war. When the Vietnamese beat the French, the US had its last chance to live up to its rhetoric, but we chose war instead.

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

George Carty said, June 4, 2007 at 14:21

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

Had it been a U.S. priority, the U.S. would have taken the same efforts to force France to an accomodation, just like the U.S. did with the British and several of its colonial territories, and it would have done so successfully. One of the problems was the degree of arrogance in presuming that the colonies would remain colonies for generations if not centuries hence. And had it been phrased in the same ideological terms of freedom and independence with which the supposedly anti-Red maniacal policies were phrased, it would have resonated both with the French and U.S. populations. (But then, that would have undermined the post-war effort by both French and U.S. authorities to slander and undermine the leftist and socialist resistance which fought the Nazis in WWII.)

That sanity would have been unrealistic is not persuasive to me, unless we’re being anthropological about the insane perspectives of the US foreign policy establishment. The fact is that they were willing to invoke upon the US population tremendous costs and losses whenever it served their crazy and aggressive purposes.

We are barely past these periods. Today it’s all viewed within the filtering valves opened by that same foreign policy establishment and its pundit worshippers.

One day, perhaps long in the future, perhaps not so long, the US establishment’s use of the Soviet foe to justify screwing up the rest of the globe in ways that served neither the populations under attack nor us here at home will be seen with as much fond remembrance as the Crusades.

“You can immediately and unconditionally cut off funding for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. Please do so, and I’ll almost-half-forgive you for caving to Bush on the recent war funding bill.”

Actually, the recent bill expressly prohibits funds going toward the construction of such bases.

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam.

Suez.

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

I think that’s certainly true and was part of the calculation, but I can’t shake the conviction that it was in no small part: “Fuck you, democracy is for white people.”

Suez.

I bet the neocons think that was America’s worst foreign-policy mistake (pissing off allies Britain and France, to suck up to the Arabs that turned against America regardless).

I bet the neocons think that was America’s worst foreign-policy mistake (pissing off allies Britain and France, to suck up to the Arabs that turned against America regardless).

Gee – I wonder if they know the difference between Egypt, the Lebenon and Iran?

Does anyone here draw parallels between US support for dictators in 1970s Latin America (motivated by fear of Communism) and US support for Middle Eastern dictators today (motivated by fear of Islamism)?

It’s not surprising that US backing for Middle Eastern democracy is a hollow sham, given that:

* Two-thirds of Jordanians, Palestinians and Egyptians support a legal system based solely on the Shari’ah (with most others supporting a system based partially on the Shari’ah).
* Two-thirds of Syrians support a legal system based partially on the Shari’ah (with most others supporting a system based solely on the Shari’ah).

(from “Revisiting the Arab Street“)

and:

* 76% of Moroccans, 74% of Egyptians, 79% of Pakistanis and 53% of Indonesians support strict application of Shari’ah law in every Muslim country.
* 71% of Moroccans, 67% of Egyptians, 74% of Pakistanis and 49% of Indonesians support the political unification of the Islamic world (ie. the restoration of the Caliphate)

(from “Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda“)?

When France (for example) opposed the 2003 Iraq war, I bet “Better Saddam than Shari’ah” was at least part of the reason…

my name a borat
i like a you
very niice!
sexytime