Freedom. Sort of.
Here is a quote from Bush's inaugural address:
"When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you."
Assuming, of course, you live in a country we want to invade. But, if you are unfortunate enough to live in a brutally oppressive country with a pro-US government...then, sorry, you're out of luck. Bush will be standing with the crooks.
These ideals he keeps paying lip service to are ideals we only selectively care about. Every single reason stated for the invasion of Iraq also applied to many of our allies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Uzbekistan....the list goes on and on. These countries are free to brutalize their citizens and not only will Bush applaud them, he'll even send along billions of dollars in economic aid.
Let's take Turkey as an example. Before invading Iraq Bush shed buckets of crocodile tears over Hussein's gassing and killing of 5,000 Kurds in the northern part of the country. The problem is that, just a few miles away across the border, Kurds are still being slaughtered to this day by the Turkish government. You see, the Kurdish people want this annoying little thing called independence, and it just so happens that they are situated near key oil facilities that bring in tons of money each year for Turkey. So, the government there has for years now been organzing death squads which sweep through villages and slaughter the Kurds any time there is talk of a seperate Kurdish state. What is Bush's policy towards Turkey? Brave man he is, Bush looks the other way. Not only that, but the Turkish army receives nearly all of its military equipment from the US. So, my question is this: if Bush feels so much compassion for the Kurds in Iraq, why is he so completely silent when it comes to oppression of the Kurds in Turkey? Moving on.
When you stand for liberty, Bush will stand with you....unless you're a women or gay living in Saudi Arabi or Egypt. The foreign policy of America is not based on strength or democracy, it's based almost entirely on the appeasement of corrupt regimes. We are in a global struggle for oil, not because we are greedy, but because the flow of oil translates to power. We don't have to have it, we just need to control it so that other big countries can't. To do this, we will bend over backwards for just about anyone.
Anyway, I'm just sick of it, I'm sick of hearing Bush muttering about ideals that he is incapable of actually supporting. "We want to see democracy spread throught the world" Oh, except in France. Remember when the government of France accurately reflected the will of it's people and refused to go along with the Iraq war? We hated them, we demonized them. We ate Freedom Fries, one of the more humiliating chapters in our recent history. Now, think about Britain. Remember when Tony Blair supported the war despite the fact that the vast majority of folks in his country opposed it? Yeah, we loved that. We're down with Blair, thank god he ignored the will of the people, right?
I guess my only point is that we only like democracy when it's convenient. And Bush? He only loves mouthing the word. In his support of numerous corrupt governments, real democracy is something he works against every single day of his presidency
"When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you."
Assuming, of course, you live in a country we want to invade. But, if you are unfortunate enough to live in a brutally oppressive country with a pro-US government...then, sorry, you're out of luck. Bush will be standing with the crooks.
These ideals he keeps paying lip service to are ideals we only selectively care about. Every single reason stated for the invasion of Iraq also applied to many of our allies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Uzbekistan....the list goes on and on. These countries are free to brutalize their citizens and not only will Bush applaud them, he'll even send along billions of dollars in economic aid.
Let's take Turkey as an example. Before invading Iraq Bush shed buckets of crocodile tears over Hussein's gassing and killing of 5,000 Kurds in the northern part of the country. The problem is that, just a few miles away across the border, Kurds are still being slaughtered to this day by the Turkish government. You see, the Kurdish people want this annoying little thing called independence, and it just so happens that they are situated near key oil facilities that bring in tons of money each year for Turkey. So, the government there has for years now been organzing death squads which sweep through villages and slaughter the Kurds any time there is talk of a seperate Kurdish state. What is Bush's policy towards Turkey? Brave man he is, Bush looks the other way. Not only that, but the Turkish army receives nearly all of its military equipment from the US. So, my question is this: if Bush feels so much compassion for the Kurds in Iraq, why is he so completely silent when it comes to oppression of the Kurds in Turkey? Moving on.
When you stand for liberty, Bush will stand with you....unless you're a women or gay living in Saudi Arabi or Egypt. The foreign policy of America is not based on strength or democracy, it's based almost entirely on the appeasement of corrupt regimes. We are in a global struggle for oil, not because we are greedy, but because the flow of oil translates to power. We don't have to have it, we just need to control it so that other big countries can't. To do this, we will bend over backwards for just about anyone.
Anyway, I'm just sick of it, I'm sick of hearing Bush muttering about ideals that he is incapable of actually supporting. "We want to see democracy spread throught the world" Oh, except in France. Remember when the government of France accurately reflected the will of it's people and refused to go along with the Iraq war? We hated them, we demonized them. We ate Freedom Fries, one of the more humiliating chapters in our recent history. Now, think about Britain. Remember when Tony Blair supported the war despite the fact that the vast majority of folks in his country opposed it? Yeah, we loved that. We're down with Blair, thank god he ignored the will of the people, right?
I guess my only point is that we only like democracy when it's convenient. And Bush? He only loves mouthing the word. In his support of numerous corrupt governments, real democracy is something he works against every single day of his presidency
posted by Samwick @ 3:26 AM
2 Comments:
At 3:37 AM,
Samwick said…
On his site, Eric asked a very good question. I wanted to repeat the question here and then also repeat my response, and for one reason: I'm not terribly well read in world history, and I welcome other viewpoints. I don't want my political views to falsely shape my understanding of history and current events.
Eric pointed out that during WWII the US worked with Stalin in order to defeat the Nazi threat. If I apply my arguments against Bush to WWII I would logically have to conclude that we should not have had Stalin as a partner, which presumably would have weakened our efforts against the Nazis. So, here is my response, and you should definately visit his blog site for his original post (aimed at anti-war activists).
"Hi Eric. Your question regarding Stalin gets right to the heart of the matter, I've been thinking about it all day. I do think we had to work with Stalin, but today I think the global situation is so different that we no longer have to behave in a similar manner. Here's why: During WWII, more than 24 Million Russians died fighting the Nazis. The sacrifice required at that time was one that no single country could have possibly made.
More importantly: the balance of military power in the world then was more evenly distributed than it is now, no one nation was strong enough to dominate the others (except, of course, for Germany, which is why their defeat was so amazing, they had really built up an incredible amount of military strength.) Today the situation could not be more different.
With the end of the cold war America found itself as the worlds only global superpower, with no other nation even coming close to matching the size and strength of our military. This isn't bragging, the technologically advanced state of our armed forces is simply a matter of fact. We no longer have to play the equal role we played in the pre-cold war era. Certainly, we must have allies but the extent to which we apologize and support places like Saudi Arabia is insane, it goes too far. And, your question really points to the problem I have with Bush: he constantly refers to the "post-9-11" world, but he's acting like a pre-cold war president. He is opposing a handful of corrupt regimes but then supporting a dozen, much worse, ones. Again, we're a global superpower now, and the continued alliance with crooks is embarrassing, we look the other way far too often. There must be some sort of middle ground between opposing all bad countries and constantly apologizing for them.
So, I agree that the alliance with Stalin was an absolute necessity at that time. Even though you and I may disagree on certain points, what seems important is that we can both make subltle distinctions and recognize when strategic compromises are necessary. More importantly, if you look at the alliances Bush has made, it is clear that he too is willing to make the necessary compromises. Here is where my problem with Bush begins: the president is obsessed with using oversimplified, black and white language, and this doesn't fool anybody. When he says one thing but is clearly doing another, I think he makes America look hypocritical. Again, the fact that he so strongly supports Saudi Arabia shows how much he is willing to compromise, but when he says things like "When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you" it just rings completly false.
To put this differently: I would support Bush much more than I do if he spoke with blunt honesty rather than these nice sounding catch phrases. If we are going to effectively fight terrorism then I think we have to offer the Islamic world a better alternative, and the one way to NOT do this is to continue saying one thing while we are clearly doing another. For someone living in an oppressive country where the government is supported by the US, Bush must seem completely morally inconsistent, and this is what I feel needs to stop.
Sorry this has gotten so long! I always tend to ramble, so let me know if any of this is not making sense, or if I'm just flat our wrong about something. Thanks for your response, take care..."
At 3:04 AM,
Samwick said…
Here is Eric's response:
"I've got two points of disagreement, and one of them is something you didn't really address in my questions to you.
1. You said the world balance of power was about equal in WWII, except for Germany. This is actually not true. In 1940 we were the most powerful nation in the world, industrially. No one else really came close. Read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers for more details, he does an excellent job of analyzing industrial and military potentials and actualities. By 1945 the United States accounted for 50% of the world's industrial capacity. Germany could not seriously threaten us. From a purely military and industrial perspective there was no need for us to go to war with Germany (Japan was a bit different, they could, and did, attack us and threatened our Pacific interests extensively). Given that there was no real moral difference between Stalin and Hitler, why support Stalin and fight Hitler? Most of the country in 1940 was not in favor of getting involved in the war in Europe at all. That said, I believe we did the right thing in WW2, right down to supporting the Soviet Union (FDR, Machiavellian bastard that he was, decided to let the Soviets bleed so that we wouldn't have to). The USSR and England, with just Lend-Lease support from the US, could have defeated Germany. You only have to look at industrial resources, manpower and strategic position to realize this. Given all of that, using your argument, we should not have been supporting the Soviet Union because they were "just as bad" and it made us look like hypocrites every time FDR talked about our principles. (I don't agree with that perspective, I'm playing devil's advocate to you)
2. How do you support liberty and freedom throughout the world? If a nation has significant problems, but the leadership is trying to fix it, what do you do about that? Do you tell them to stick it, we aren't going to help you? Or do you dig in and try to support that leadership so that they might be able to make effective change? Pakistan is a good example. The leadership of Pakistan, at considerable personal risk, is opposing al Qaeda and Islamic extremism. The same is now happening in Saudi Arabia as well (which is the ultimate target of al Qaeda, by the way, not us). If we were to withdraw our support for those countries, things would get worse there, not better. I think you need to research Turkey some more before you continue to lump them in with Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
In any case, in the struggle against Islamic Extremism as far as I can see you are either trying to oppose Wahabi fundamentalism, Iranian Islamic Revolution, the Ba'ath version of Fascism, and so forth, or you are embracing it. It is clear that Syria, Iraq and Iran were on the embracing side of that equation, as was Afghanistan, and Libya to a lesser extent. Or you are opposed to it, to some greater or lesser degree. The House of Saud, as an example, is corrupt, yes, and oppressive towards their people, yes. But they are actually trying to effect some change and the alternative to them is worse ..... al Qaeda and the Wahabi Fundamentalists would probably come to power in their place and we'd have a Taliban like government sitting on top of the world's most extensive oil reserves. That is not a good idea, neither for liberty nor for the world economy."
Post a Comment
<< Home