posted
The opening statement of Bush's UN address reads
quote:Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children, without mercy or shame.”
After spending the summer working in Europe and the past week at an international conference, I found this statement deeply ironic. From the perspective of most of the world, the divide is far less clear today than it was two years ago. If anything has become clear at all, it is that the Bush administration is moving progressively toward the wrong side of that divide. Are Bush and his speech writers really so far out of touch with the rest of the world, that they weren't aware of the irony many would find in this statement.
Consider the countries who are currently members of the UN security council
Angola Bulgaria Cameroon China Chile France Germany Guinea Mexico Pakistan Russian Federation Spain Syria UK US
Has even one of these countries taken action in the past years that has clearly distinguished it as one that spreads chaos or one that seeks order? Can we at Hatrack agree on even one country?
How can Bush have any hope of rallying the world's support to help stabilize Iraq, if he is so utterly blind to the views and arguments of his detractors.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Countries from that list that have some blood on their hands or have worked to make a better world:
Angola Long standing war with South Africa that has quietened down since Mandela came to power. Still wages brushfire wars with UNITA and some 4 million firearms are suspected to be out there in the country waiting for use against someone, the government or otherwise.
Cameroon Since a legalization of opposition parties in 1990, it seems Cameroon is trying its best. It still struggles with an AIDS epidemic, but it is working on developing an economy and infrastructure in the tough Central African region. Lake Chad region still sees armed clashes, but Cameroon recently set up negotiation committee with Nigeria over valuable oil rights. They do appear to be trying very hard.
China Improving, but still stifles opposition groups brutally even after world attention at Tianamin Square debacle. Made threatening moves at Tiawan during the 1990s and was rebuffed by US warships. Still refuses to admit to atrocities in Tibet or to release it to self rule. Cultural genocide in Tibet almost complete as more Chinese are brought in and native Tibetans relocated elsewhere. Major arms dealer with few qualms of selling to known rogue nations. Also regularly accused of modern piracy.
Chile Striving to be a shining point in South America, has worked on improving human rights and overall conditions for all citizens. Greatly improved over last 15 years. Still has problems with Shining Path insurgents and is becoming a drug haven for Columbian cartels. Has ongoing dispute with Peru.
Pakistan Broke nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Actually created and installed the Taliban as leaders of Afghanistan. Afghan/Paki border area considered tribal lands and unpoliced haven for terrorist groups. Is a military dictatorship, having ousted Butros. Ongoing conflict with India over Kashmir region, turns mainly blind eye to Islamic groups seeking refuge there while attacking Indian nationals.
Russian Federation Ongoing warfare in Chechnya region, known arms merchant to most Third World countries and has history of backdoor or black market sales of weaponry, some fairly high tech. Is home to largest growing computer hacker community. Shaky and worrisome controls over nuclear weaponry. Biggest export at current time appears to be Russian organized crime which makes even the Mafia and Yakuza blanch at its brutality. Slavery ongoing problem as young women are enticed to immigrate only to find themselves bought and sold into slavery/prostitution rings.
Syria Long-time haven for Pro-Palestinian teror groups, runs puppet government of Lebanon which allows Hamas and Hezbollah free rein in southern Lebanon along Israeli border. Longtime considered strongest military (not largest) in region, it has quietly allowed the title to slip away, although still retaining top-of-the-line Soviet-era weaponry, sent in to balance out US weaponry in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Bad guys, always have been, chances are always will be.
US Make of it what you will.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points Sopwith, but you fail to tell me the answer. Bush said the the past two years have set forth the clearest division between those who support peace, order and human rights and those who don't. What have these countries done in the past 2 years, in response to 9/11, to show which side they are on.
Take Russia as one example. Is their war in Chechnya a fight against terrorists or the merciless killing of men, women and children? Is it clear cut in the way Bush implies.
Chile pushed hard for a UN compromise on Iraq including a proposal in the final days before the war to give Iraq a 3 week deadline to comply with certain demands. They would not joing the "coalition of the willing". Does this put them among those who support peace or make them an impedimment to US efforts to erradicate those who act like gangsters?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
"George W. Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English language.
What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language -- especially negatively charged emotional language -- as a political tool. Take a closer look at his speeches and public utterances and his political success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others...
Catastrophic words and phrases are repeatedly drilled into the listener's head until the opposition feels such a high level of anxiety that it appears pointless to do anything other than cower."
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth - thanks for that link. I found it very interesting in explaining my experiences with the President's speeches. I often go into a speech knowing that I am going to disagree with him, but find myself nodding along with him. Now some explaination why.
posted
How odd. And here I thought I was pessimistic about the future because it depends on the actions of people who will take any excuse to get angry at us.
Still, the concept may be true. I wonder if Bush is doing this deliberately or simply because he's saying what he thinks is appropriate. Carter, after all, talked about a "malaise" because he thought that was really what was going on. And certainly there is no obvious way to put an end to terrorism, as anything we do to stop terrorists will incite revenge attacks.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children, without mercy or shame.
The truly ironic thing in that quote is that we fit in both of these categories. Even more interesting, the reason we spread chaos and adopt the methods of gangsters is because we seek order and honor the rights of man.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that article explains something about why my response to Bush is so different from most Americans. Everytime I hear Bush speak, I am filled with rage, so much so that I now read his speeches rather than listen to them live. My response to intimidation, has always been rage. The one sure way to ignite my redhead temper (which usually has a very long fuse) is to try to intimidate me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:the reason we spread chaos and adopt the methods of gangsters is because we seek order and honor the rights of man.
Or perhaps we should say we seek an order which will ensure the rights or Americans with out regard to the rights of other men and women.
The US has an absolutely terrible record on human rights outside the US. We have backed coups, terrorists, and all types of chaos and supported many of the most brutal dictators.
And while I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans support peace, order and human rights for all people, we have not held our leaders accountable to pursue those goals abroad.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or perhaps we should say we seek an order which will ensure the rights or Americans with out regard to the rights of other men and women.
I think that is an unfair characterization of our leaders. Often times the motivation behind supporitng terrorists or brutal dictators is because we seem to think it is the most effective way to bring order to whatever region of the world we are dealing with. I don't believe our problem is with our motivations so much. I think our problem is that we think the best way to eliminate these "gangsters" is to sink to their level and become gangsters ourselves, in one way or another. We think we can fight one 'evildoer' by supporting another lesser 'evildoer'. We think we can fight "terrorism" with "shock and awe". And we think this is bringing order and human rights to the people we do it to. But has it ever? Certainly not too often.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't believe our problem is with our motivations so much. I think our problem is that we think the best way to eliminate these "gangsters" is to sink to their level and become gangsters ourselves, in one way or another."
I think the guy on "The Daily Show" put it best: "In order to SAVE something, it's necessary to KILL part of it. In order to save the forest, we have to cut down all the trees. In order to save Iraq, we had to kill a whole bunch of Iraqis."(paraphrased like heck) I really think Bush believes this, and believes it is the right thing to do. It goes back to the Roman Republic, and further back to Aristotle-the need to conquer in order to have peace. This is not a coincidence, either. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss, at U of Chicago. No one should think George W. Bush is dumb.
[ September 26, 2003, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Straussians also believe that the public is not capable of understanding or accepting the universal principles of right. Therefore, they posit the rectitude of the "noble lie" which shields the uneducated public from knowledge of unpalatable truth, for which the public might hold the philosopher to blame (as happened with Socrates)."
posted
So Tresopax, When the US orchestrated the overthrough of the democratically elected, progressive government of Iran and installed the Shah as dictator, how were we looking out for the human rights of the Iranians?
When the US backed Pinochet in Chile, how were we looking out for the human rights of the Chileans?
Why has the US held such strong opposition to Castro, while backing other totalatarian regimes in the Caribean and Central America with far worse human rights records?
In fact, in the past 50 years I can not think of one single instance in which the US has pursued the human rights of non-US citizens at the expensive of US corporate interests, US trade, or US security. I can think of dozens where the opposite has been done. Unless you can show me clear examples where the US has pursued human rights, peace and order at the expense of US material interests, then your arguement that we are really supporting human rights above US privelege is empty.
[ September 26, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rather afraid if China started participating in spreading order. Also, wasn't that what Hussein was attempting in taking over Kuwait? or is it non PC to link that with our current trouble?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, in the past 50 years I can not think of one single instance in which the US has pursued the human rights of non-US citizens at the expensive of US corporate interests, US trade, or US security. I can think of dozens where the opposite has been done. Unless you can show me clear examples where the US has pursued human rights, peace and order at the expense of US material interests, then your arguement that we are really supporting human rights above US privelege is empty.
Okay, quick ones off of the top of my head:
US first refuses to send arms to South Africa beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, then follows up with a total economic boycott in the 1980s as opposition to Apartheid.
How about our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo? No monetary gain there, but definite human rights abuses and attempts at genocide.
How about the biggie? The fall of the Soviet Union. For just under 50 years, we fought a Cold War to prevent the spread of Communism and many of our "bad" decisions were made to stymie Soviet enterprises around the world. Communism is the worst new afront to Human Rights of the past century because, by its writ and nature, it requires the complete abdication of human rights for it to perform properly. So yes, I can easily see our actions against a smothering, ruthless, cold-hearted Communist regime as a blow for human rights, one that cost us and the world dearly.
Prague Spring. Pol Pot. Gulags. Stalinist purges. Mao's Great Leap Forward. Tianamin Square. Tibet. Vietnam. The Korean War. The Kaitien Forest Massacre. The Inchon Reservoir and human wave tactics. The Berlin Wall. The Great March.
The good always have to fight against the evil. And fire must often be used to fight fire.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The US actions during the Cold War don't support your claims. Through out the cold war the US proved it was willing to sacrifice the rights of people in Africa and South America in order to protect ourselves from communism. In case after case the US backed brutal facists dictators, which one can argue convincingly were at least as big an evil in the past century as Marxist/Lenninist regimes. We didn't do this to protect Africans and South Americans, we did it to protect ourselves -- we thought it was just fine to sacrifice their rights to protect ours.
What's more, big business in the US profited heavily from the cold war, just like every other war.
As for South Africa, Bosnia and Kosovo, you are still off the mark. The question wasn't, has the US ever fought for anything where there wasn't a clear US profit to be made, it was have we ever supported a policy where the rights of US companies or citizens were sacrificed in order to create order or protect the human rights of others.
Historically, we have found it to completely acceptable for Nicaraguans of Chileans to be tortured and terrorized to protect our rights but we have rarely if ever been willing to sacrifice our privileges to protect the human rights of Chileans or Nicaraguans. That equation says something to me. If you actually researched what the US has been doing outside our borders for the past 50 years, it would say something to you too.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that asking that our government act to the detriment of US citizens and businesses is foolish.
If that was the case, I would be rather upset. Our government has been instituted specificly:
quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
IE, for us.
This is not to say that we can request and demand that our government operates in such a way as to advance the rest of the world at the same time. Or to say that we should not critcize it when it fails to live up to that goal.
But to say that it should act contrary to our own intersts is, I believe, foolish.
Though there is a whole lot of room to argue about what is in our interst.
What would have been the results if we hadn't gotten involved in Africa and South America? I'm betting Communism would have fallen across them quite heavily. And the situation would have been worse for human rights. Dig a bit into what happened inside Angola and Ethiopia. Find out what the Angolans did to their own ethnic minorities and the peoples of Namibia. Perhaps talk with an Eritritian or an aid worker who spent time in Ethiopia during the 1980s.
Ever wonder why people still get on rickety rafts and try to go from Cuba to Miami?
I'd restate the whole deal on the Iran overthrow again, but go back and look up the work I typed up when someone presented Michael Moore's list of American "atrocities."
Chile, I can't and won't defend that one. I think we went in there for the wrong reasons and did a bad thing. I won't argue with you there.
Latin America, has been a give and take, not all good, not all bad. Nicaragua went to the Soviet side and we supported those who would oppose them. It put us in bed with some bad folks, I won't dispute that, but had that domino tipped the wrong way, even worse folks could have popped up around the region and right on our doorstep.
And yes, I would argue that many American businesses were hurt by our embargo against South Africa. Remember that South Africa has one of the wealthiest reserves of valuable and strategic natural resources in the world. It was also a huge marketplace for our goods.
Sometimes, though, don't you think that it might be better to point a finger at those who have done the actual pillaging, murdering and torturing rather than at a whole country that may have only attempted to push a pendulum one way rather than the other?
You do make it sound like there was a band of American citizens there applying the whips or pulling the triggers. That we should feel deep and abiding guilt over the actions of people in foreign lands.
But when we step up to publicly stop things, as we did in Iraq, you scream that we are murderers for taking out the bad guys. Can we win one that you'd be happy with? Did you protest Kosovo and Bosnia and our involvement there? If so, did you protest what was going on before we were involved? Did you write your congressman or the local paper? I did, starting in 1991.
How would you handle each of those situations you outline as America's failures and crimes against the world? Would you have let them run their course? Would you have supported the opposition? What would have been the outcomes? Would you feel as comfortable openly supporting the other side as you do in criticizing our role?
Should we have let the Europeans sort out World War II on their own? Or did we create this whole mess by trying to prevent the conquest of Europe, Asia and North Africa? Surely if we had pursued peace at any cost, it would have only been a few million more Jews to die, or Chinese, or Slavs, or Gypsies, or Communists, or Poles, or Koreans.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I won't dispute that, but had that domino tipped the wrong way, even worse folks could have popped up around the region and right on our doorstep."
Sopwith, you're assuming that the domino theory is credible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, You are arguing against a strawman of your own construction.
Lerris, My original contention was in response to Tresopax's assertion that the US has spread chaos and adopted the methods of gangsters, because we seek order and honor the rights of man. My response is that we spread chaos because we seek our own interested first and concern ourselves with order and human rights in the rest of the world only if they don't interfere with US interests. The question of whether or not it is a good thing for the US to pursue its own interests with out regard to the interests of others is a different question.
In my opinion, any leader that puts his or her own interests above the interests of the group they lead, is an unfit leader. If the it is the obligation of the US government to pursue US interests first and foremost, then the US government is unfit to play a leadership role in the world community.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the domino theory does happen again and again. Be it with communism, instability or whatever. Communism: Vietnam ---> Laos ---> Cambodia
Instability: Algeria ---> Sudan ---> Ethiopia ---> Somalia ---> on and on throughout Africa.
Rabbit, I don't see the strawman. Sorry.
But still, what would you have done in those countries, what outcomes would happen?
Should we just sit back and pout if they don't want to be responsible? C'mon, venture your suggestions. Real world ideas, real world results?
Switzerland enjoyed neutrality and relative peace during WWII. But did nothing to relieve the suffering of those around them. They did, however, bank the treasures robbed of much of Europe. Somewhere in one of their vaults is bound to be nearly a ton of gold extracted from the teeth of Jews killed at the concentration camps.
You want peace, I want peace. You want humans to be able to live their lives in safety with the opportunity to believe what they want, say what they have to, participate in their governments and responsible residents of the world. I want that, too, in my heart and soul.
It just seems you want to appease the bullies that keep them down or at least to try and reason with them again and again. Me, I'm tired of the bullies and their thuggery and am willing to knock them down in the hopes that they won't cause trouble ever again.
I don't want or seek violence, I abhor it. But should I be so avowed to non-violence that I turn my back on those who are constantly victimized? Should I look into their beaten faces and say "I'm sorry, your leader just won't listen to reason, I've done all I can do?"
If you've got a better way, I'd welcome the chance to hear it. I challenge you... show me what would work.
Or are you the real strawman?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First Sopwith, Let's look at the domino theory. The theory held that if Vietnam went communist, it would cause a cascade and before long all of South East Asia and Indonesia would become communist. This would put communism lapping at the Australian shores and before long, the entire free world (US included) would be communist.
Now lets look at what actually happened. We lost the Vietnam war and Vietnam fell to the communists so we don't even have to speculate about what would have happened had we not defeated the communists in Vietnam. We lost, we know the outcome. Within less than a decade Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos inploded. The rest of South East Asia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, rather than going communist as the domino theory predicted, went through a democratic and capitalist revival. The domino effect simply did not happen.
Regarding the strawman, you are not directly addressing my contention, ever. My point was that the US foreign policy over the past 50 years has not been motivated by world peace and human rights, but has instead been directed at preserving US rights and US supremacy. The domino theory is a classic example. The theory justified US envolvement in many parts of the world, not for their benefit but out of fear that their battles would inevitably impact US rights and US supremacy. You are debating whether or not US policy questions were ultimately good or bad for the countries involved. That is a strawman because it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the US made the choices with the intent to promote global peace, order and justice or whether we were motivated by the desire to promote US rights and privileges.
Take for example the Carribean. There have been more refugees on rickity rafts from Haiti during my life time than from Cuba, but we don't have sanctions against Haiti -- why not? Because we don't perceive Haiti's dictator as a threat to US profits and security. If we cared about Castro because of human rights violations, we would care even more about Human Rights in Haiti, Chile, China, Uganda, Sierra Lyone, Nigeria and a dozen other places in the world which have had oppressive dictatorships.
[ September 26, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the Camp David Peace Accords signed between Egypt and Israel during the Carter Administration. It set peace between the two and probably didn't do much for our place in their marketplaces.
Honestly, though, I don't know why I am even bothering to argue here. I admit we've dones some things as a country that were unsavory to say the least, but on your side, you want to paint the US as a horrid monster only involved in what will get it what it wants.
Why do we send foreign aid at all? Why do we send out Peace Corps volunteers? Why do we send special assistance to the victims of earthquakes and typhoons? Why do we support health initiatives around the world. Why do our people from the Center for Disease Control leave the safety of Atlanta, Ga. to head into deepest Africa to research Ebola and work to find a cure?
We're always the guys in the black hats, right?
And you still haven't offered what you would do to make things right...
Accusations are one thing, but ideas, now there is something to work from.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The United Nations is founded on three basic principles:
1. Prevent war. 2. Restore peace. 3. Humanitarian concerns.
(These are heavily paraphrased, obviously.)
When the United States when to war with Iraq, we broke the charter. The most sacred, most fundamental foundation from which the UN derives its authority. We broke it. Before George Bush spoke at the UN the other day, Kofi Annan got up there and said that we are in a fork in the road: are we going to follow the principles upon which this organization is founded, and move to do what we all agree to do, or are we all going to decide for ourselves and do what we as individual countries want to do?
Bush got up there and basically said, "Okay, we've had some differences, but we can get past them -- let's all be friends." Obviously, the UN isn't having it!
I'm living in D.C. now, so I'll use a D.C. analogy. Our war with Iraq was almost like our war against poison ivy on Roosevelt Island. "That poison ivy is a threat to national security!" we said. We ran to the UN and said, "the poison ivy is very, very dangerous and a threat to our security! We must use napalm and destroy the whole island!" The UN looked at us like we were crazy and said, "Oh, no, you don't need to napalm the entire island to get rid of a little poison ivy." We said, "yes we do!" And we went charging in, napalmed the whole island.
Then we looked around us for a minute, thought about it, and ran back to the UN screaming "FIRE! FIRE! HELP US!" They looked at us and said, "duh, of course you have a fire. Now give us the hose and we'll help you put it out."
"NO!' we screamed. "You can't have the hose, we want the hose! But we want you to send people to stamp on it with feet while we show them where to go!"
Of course the UN isn't having it.
You don't have to agree with me. Maybe that poison ivy really was dangerous. But did Saddam Hussein really have ties to al-Qaeda? No. Did Saddam Hussein really have ties to 9/11? No. The President said that last week. So how do you think it looks to the UN? We broke the charter.
[ September 26, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted that since the US ratified the UN charter, it is US law. And not just law, according to the constitution, ratified treaties along the the US constitution form the highest law of the land which cannot be changed by executive decree or a simple majority in the house and senate. By invading Iraq, Bush was breaking the highest law of our country. By authorize the invasion, congress also violated the highest law of the land.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
