babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Wow... someone actually said it in print...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Wow... someone actually said it in print...
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 07 November 2003 08:41 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mr. Bush has called Iran part of the "axis of evil" and a terrorist-sponsoring state seeking weapons of mass destruction, yet it has freer elections than most Muslim states. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a close ally, is ruled with an iron fist by its royal family.

U.S. challenges authoritarian rulers

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 07 November 2003 10:10 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East," Mr. Bush said as he tossed aside more than half a century of policy in the United States, which has propped up even brutal and repressive regimes as long as they proved loyal allies.

"By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region," Mr. Bush added.


...
quote:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Mr. Bush said, recalling the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Many US bloggers are comparing this to the Reagan “tear down this wall” speech.

From another source...
quote:
The U.S. is trying to do that now in Iraq. We're doing it with 130,000 troops and 100 billion of our own dollars. The rest of the region is watching to see if it succeeds. And if it succeeds, there is the chance that others will start to accept and start to move in that direction. If it fails, every Arab is going to look at it and say, the Americans tried, they tried with $100 billion, and 13,000 troops, and if it can't work in Iraq, there's on way it can work here.
Pollack opines.

PS: The typos in the CNN quote are something, no?

[ 07 November 2003: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 November 2003 11:42 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The U.S. is trying to do that now in Iraq. We're doing it with 130,000 troops and 100 billion of our own dollars. The rest of the region is watching to see if it succeeds.

If democratisation is really their intent, they could probably get more accomplished with a few battalions of electricians and plumbers.

quote:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating [he forgot "promoting and financing"] the lack of freedom in the Middle East...

This is rich, coming from an unelected President (annointed by God, though, according to one of his top Generals) who has been rolling back civil liberties in his own country.

Arabs aren't impressed

quote:
"Bush's speech is like a boring, broken record that nobody believes," said Gulf-based political analyst Moghazy al-Badrawy.

"He wants democracy and the U.S. is occupying Iraq and its ally Israel is killing Palestinians? Arabs just don't buy it."

Abdel-Monem Said, director of Egypt's Al-Ahram Center for Political Strategic Studies, said the perceived U.S. dishonesty in justifying the Iraq war had also tarnished its credibility.

"Democracy is all about legalities, rule of law and legitimacy," he said. "There is an issue of double standards."


[ 08 November 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 08 November 2003 12:12 AM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If democratisation is really their intent, they could probably get more accomplished with a few battalions of electricians and plumbers.
Agreed to kinda, but Army duties and police and constrution are not always compatible. Whining against utopia is easy. Being pragmatic is much harder. Esp if you're the one...

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 November 2003 03:43 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know what you mean by "Whining against utopia is easy."

Since when has having electicity and running water been utopian? Iraq, if you remember, has had these things in the past.

I'm saying that more expressions of goodwill, rather than force, are needed. Armies of occupation, unfortunately, quite often have little of the former and hence must rely on the latter.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 November 2003 10:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aw, SHH is feeling the weight of the white man's burden. Such a trial to be so superior, ain't it, SHH? But somebody's gotta do it ...

One of the things that struck me about Bush's speech is that it could be described as making what were being derided two years ago as the "root-causes" argument.

The war-mongers won't want anyone to remember their own attacks on this kind of argument, of course. I do, though.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 08 November 2003 01:22 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sixty years of Western nations (read: the US), ignoring the political conditions of a geographic area? Like military dictatorships in South America? Corrupt or racist regimes in Africa? Someone finally took notice that the rhetoric and the policy don't match? God damn!

Sounds like someone hit Dubya on the head while he was strolling along that road to Damascus (and I doubt it was Assad, either). It's actually a pretty amazing thing what Bush just admitted to. Propping up dictatorships, supporting corrupt royal families, the odd coup… to overturn a half century of US policy just like that. It's almost like he said: yeah, that whole crap about democracy and freedom, well… we mean it now….

However, as some my suspect… I'm a bit cynical. The last quagmire was propped up by the idea of the domino effect. What I'm hearing now… If Iraq is successful then the whole Middle East can't be far behind…


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 08 November 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Whining against utopia is easy. Being pragmatic is much harder. Esp if you're the one...

...the one what? Are you the one, SHH? Are you policing a Baghdad neighbourhood as we speak? If so, killer internet connection, by the way. Anyway, as we've seen in the past, these grand ideas of reforming the world that the US gets periodically are generally hampered by the political pragmatism of how much sacrifice the average American will endure to advance these ideas...and, judging from the "whining" lately about how much it's all costing both in money and lives, I suspect a "personal sacrifice" on the part of most Americans will be too much to bear.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 08 November 2003 03:16 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We'll see how serious this new humble posture of Dubya's is when ferociously anti-American, defiantly independent, "Yankee-Go-Home" governments are elected from one end of the Middle East to the other.

I'm sure all those American oil companies will just pack up quietly and leave after all those countries' petroleum industries are nationalized, like under Mossadeq.

Riiiiight.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 08 November 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All this would fall on more receptive ears, if Bush would utter, even once, the words "we were wrong." If he said: "The United States was wrong to back the overthrow of democracy in Iran," people might believe there was an actual attempt to aid democratization. Or he could say: "we were wrong to promote military rule in Turkey." Or: "we were wrong to oppose Kurdish self-determination." As it is, it's hard to take this seriously. All rah-rah patriotism, no substance or self-awareness.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 November 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More Arab scepticism

quote:
[Lebanese] Culture Minister Ghazi Aridi countered that the question now, as it has always been, is about interests and not democracy as far as the United States is concerned... Aridi, who is a leading member of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party, claimed that the goal of the US administration was to replace existing regional authoritarian regimes with “more useful and compliant regimes.”
He asserted that the US “wants to build democracies that promote Israeli interests,” maintaining that historically the US interacts with authoritarian regimes and terrorist groups when it serves its interests.

Even Phalangists are sceptical about US intentions:

quote:
Karim Pakradouni, the minister of state for administrative reform and president of the Phalange Party, said Bush’s speech only served electoral political interests and “addressed the American people rather than the Arab world.”

Someone compared Bush's words to Reagan's “tear down this wall” speech? Sure, mention Reagan to Arabs, that will work. Lebanese remember what happened to their country during the Reagan years. So do the Iraqis.

Maybe Bush should go to al-Aksa and say "I am a Palestinian."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 November 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can we give him a jelly donut?

Anyway, from the article:

quote:
"Modernization is not the same as Westernization," he said.

"Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not and should not look like us."


I find this singularly interesting for Dubya to be saying, given that I seem to recall comments from him and his Cabinet not long before, insinuating that "only" the way the "West" structures its governments is suitable.

Perhaps he has finally realized that he single-handedly managed to torpedo a thawing out of relations between the US and Iran with his idiotic "axis of evil" speech. This throwaway line by him above may be an attempt to acknowledge that the Iranian form of government, with limited elections, probably imparts more stability to a country than the Syrian or Saudi model of an absolute leader.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 08 November 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
All this would fall on more receptive ears, if Bush would utter, even once, the words "we were wrong." If he said: "The United States was wrong to back the overthrow of democracy in Iran," people might believe there was an actual attempt to aid democratization. Or he could say: "we were wrong to promote military rule in Turkey." Or: "we were wrong to oppose Kurdish self-determination." As it is, it's hard to take this seriously. All rah-rah patriotism, no substance or self-awareness.

Have you ever seen the United States take the blame for anything?

-Mel Lastman


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 November 2003 05:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can we give him a jelly donut?

Ich bin ein baklava?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 November 2003 06:02 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Aw, SHH is feeling the weight of the white man's burden. Such a trial to be so superior, ain't it, SHH? But somebody's gotta do it ...

One of the things that struck me about Bush's speech is that it could be described as making what were being derided two years ago as the "root-causes" argument.

The war-mongers won't want anyone to remember their own attacks on this kind of argument, of course. I do, though.


The flip-flopping is rather Stalin-esque, no?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 November 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
We'll see how serious this new humble posture of Dubya's is when ferociously anti-American, defiantly independent, "Yankee-Go-Home" governments are elected from one end of the Middle East to the other.

I'm sure all those American oil companies will just pack up quietly and leave after all those countries' petroleum industries are nationalized, like under Mossadeq.

Riiiiight.


Worth repeating. You took the words right out of my mouth.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 08 November 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Worth repeating. You took the words right out of my mouth.


Recall Algeria. Democratic elections brought a so-called 'Islamic Fundementalist' party (FIS) into power - with a clear majority. What was U.S./Western policy? Help foment a military coup and subvert the election results. Then, covertly aid the Army in it's counterinsurgency war against the members and supporters of FIS who want the results of the election respected. The Army gets to call it's massacres of civilians a 'war on terrorists' sounding eerily (ironically) like the French in their last ditch effort to control Algeria...

Guess those Ay-rabs just don't get 'democracy'....

[ 08 November 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 November 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mr. Bush has called Iran part of the "axis of evil" and a terrorist-sponsoring state seeking weapons of mass destruction, yet it has freer elections than most Muslim states. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a close ally, is ruled with an iron fist by its royal family.

They make some pretence to having elections in Iran but it seems like whoever people vote for, the Ayatollahs still rule and just ignore the results.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 November 2003 09:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Stockholm has a point there. Haven't there even been some movements afoot in the past in Iran to boycott elections since in practice the place just winds up a theocratic dictatorship anyhow?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 08 November 2003 09:55 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm saying that more expressions of goodwill, rather than force, are needed. Armies of occupation, unfortunately, quite often have little of the former and hence must rely on the latter.
You mean you haven’t donated to ChiefWiggles yet?
quote:
Sixty years of Western nations (read: the US), ignoring the political conditions of a geographic area? Like military dictatorships in South America? Corrupt or racist regimes in Africa? Someone finally took notice that the rhetoric and the policy don't match? God damn!
I dunno clockwork, when it comes to Iraq, seems the Russians and French were far more involved than the US. If ‘propping up’ includes providing military equipment, the US is one of the least guilty among the West; which, I take to include: Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Africa, and most of Europe.
quote:
One of the things that struck me about Bush's speech is that it could be described as making what were being derided two years ago as the "root-causes" argument.
Really, skdadl? I mean, as in, taking blame? That’s not the way I heard it. What does ‘prop up’ mean anyway?...and how much of this was really war of the cold type? And why are many Arab scholars and leaders looking inward and suggesting to their people that the problem is them?

I think it’s fair to say the US ‘props up’ Egypt and Israel with disproportionately large direct hand outs, but what of the rest? Is doing business with them propping? Or is just letting them exist sufficient? I’m so confused. The US ‘props up’ nasty dictatorial regimes and that’s bad. The US takes down a nasty dictatorial regime and that’s bad, too. I’m a lousy nanny. I’d just spank’em all and send’em to bed.

quote:
Someone compared Bush's words to Reagan's “tear down this wall” speech? Sure, mention Reagan to Arabs, that will work.
The comparison is being made along the lines of seriousness, resolve, and magnitude; not personality.
quote:
Anyway, as we've seen in the past, these grand ideas of reforming the world that the US gets periodically are generally hampered by the political pragmatism of how much sacrifice the average American will endure to advance these ideas...
Yeah, there was Vietnam. But then, there was that Cold War too.
quote:
Perhaps he has finally realized that he single-handedly managed to torpedo a thawing out of relations between the US and Iran with his idiotic "axis of evil" speech. This throwaway line by him above may be an attempt to acknowledge that the Iranian form of government, with limited elections, probably imparts more stability to a country than the Syrian or Saudi model of an absolute leader.
Are you serious here, Doc? Maybe we’re reading different propaganda, but from what I hear, Iran is powder-keg compared to SA or Syria. I have an email acquaintance in Tehran. She’s a young student. She tells me the so-called ‘elections’ are mostly boycotted.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 08 November 2003 11:05 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Really, skdadl? I mean, as in, taking blame? That’s not the way I heard it.

If you will recall, all the Bushlicking warmongers after September 11th ridiculed any suggestion that American foreign policy in the Middle East had ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with the attacks. We were all supposed to believe that bin Laden & co. launched the attacks for purely existential reasons, simply because They Hate Our Freedoms, blah-blah-blah. Anyone who departed from that Party Line was furiously denounced as "anti-American" or "blaming the victim" or whatever. Go back and read some old Babble threads from fall 2001 if you don't believe it.

Now you have Shrub making statements like this, explicitly in the context of past US support for dictators:

quote:
As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export

Exactly the sort of thing that Noam Chomsky and others were saying two years ago. And for which said heretics were rhetorically burned at the stake by Bush's hysterical and robotic followers.

Now I don't think Bush means it for a second, but that's another matter.

quote:
I’m so confused. The US ‘props up’ nasty dictatorial regimes and that’s bad. The US takes down a nasty dictatorial regime and that’s bad, too.

For those who apply common sense, the former stance (the US propping up some dictators) entirely discredits and undermines the notion that the latter action (the US taking down one particular dictator) was undertaken for any moral reason. "Principles" applied selectively are by definition not "princples", but expediency and propaganda.

The US supports those dictators which are useful to US interests (like Saddam pre-1990). The US opposes those dictators which are contrary to US interests (like Saddam post-1990). In other words, US foreign policy, like that of every other government, is entirely cynical and self-serving.

It's all realpolitik, dude. What's so confusing about that?

It's amazing how entrenched this idea of US "exceptionalism" is. No matter how much evidence accumulates, some people (not all of them Americans) just can't bring themselves to accept the notion that the US is just another grubby great power protecting its own interests by whatever amoral means are available.

[ 08 November 2003: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 November 2003 12:10 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The comparison is being made along the lines of seriousness, resolve, and magnitude; not personality.

The Shrubbery was probably quite serious and resolute when he told the world of his Crusade.

More from Lebanon

quote:
The presidential speech was noteworthy for several reasons. It rightly acknowledged the West’s responsibility for the prevalence of autocracy as the Middle Eastern norm, admitting that the West’s focus on security, at the expense of liberty and democracy, led to the current collection of often dysfunctional, always non-democratic states in this area. Such recognition of one’s own role in the larger problem to be resolved is a healthy starting point, and Bush did well to state the fact.
The president also rightly acknowledged that autocracy in the Middle East was not a function of culture or religion, but of policies designed by incumbent governments and rulers who were not held accountable. This is a refreshing shift in the frequent rhetoric in some parts of the West, and many places in the US, that despairs of seeing democracy in Islamic societies.
It was also refreshing to hear the American president specifically mention a few countries that have some way to go in improving their governance systems, but that also have great potential to lead the whole region out of its autocratic ways.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 11 November 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In other words, US foreign policy, like that of every other government, is entirely cynical and self-serving.

It's all realpolitik, dude. What's so confusing about that?


Since we’re on the same page for the moment...nothing, nothing at all. Then why all the carping?
quote:
It's amazing how entrenched this idea of US "exceptionalism" is. No matter how much evidence accumulates, some people (not all of them Americans) just can't bring themselves to accept the notion that the US is just another grubby great power protecting its own interests by whatever amoral means are available.
Are small powers ever grubby and amoral? Do they get a pass, or special consideration because they’re small? Most I’m aware of are much more hideous than the larger Western nations.

But I’m still confused, beluga2. Bush says:

quote:
As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.
Beluga2 affirms with:
quote:
Exactly the sort of thing that Noam Chomsky and others were saying two years ago.
SHH chimes in:
quote:
Esp if you're the one...
and is met with
quote:
Aw, SHH is feeling the weight of the white man's burden. Such a trial to be so superior, ain't it, SHH? But somebody's gotta do it ...
So why is SHH the one to be singled out as suffering from the WMB? (A term, btw, I find as about as useful in today’s world as craniometry.)

So Bush, Noam, Beluga2 and SHH all agree? That is simply not possible. The fact that skdadl is whacking me with her broomstick (it’s just a left-over from her Halloween costume...I’m implying nothing here) tells me something.

And yes, I feel better already.

[ 11 November 2003: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 November 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SHH:
Are small powers ever grubby and amoral? Do they get a pass, or special consideration because they’re small? Most I’m aware of are much more hideous than the larger Western nations.

Since beluga2 was specifically discussing so-called "great powers" (ie. Britain, the USSR, et cetera), your nigletizing about small powers seems to be an attempt to evade the point, which is that the United States, Manifest Destiny aside, is not a never-before-seen benevolent power which just unintentially stumbled a few times.

The Roman Empire, by roughly 200 B.C. standards, was probably similarly, on the face of it, an 'enlightened' power, even though the true leader was the Emperor and not the Senate. Even so, today, the general consensus is that the basic driving force of Roman ambitions was simple imperialism. I'm not even sure contemporary Romans bothered to dress up the whole notion of conquering other people in any flowery rhetoric about 'saving them from themselves' or any such balderdash.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 11 November 2003 03:56 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
is not a never-before-seen benevolent power which just unintentially stumbled a few times.
Okay Doc, on the benevolence charge, seems OBL agrees. On the resolve side the US also came up short: Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia. So what is it: Hard ass efficient killers or chicken-butt panty-waists who run at the first sign of trouble? Some Empire. Now Iraq. I’d be scratching my head.

Or maybe it’s whatever fits the mood of the critics? Was somebody talking about consistency?


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 November 2003 05:46 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i would submit that the contradiction can be resolved by pointing to two things:

1. The USA's empire is economic and political, not military. It rests largely on accidents of history far more than intelligent design, unlike the British version which was explicitly predicated on military takeover of colonial "possessions". By contrast, US military adventurism in the late 1800s/early 1900s, while serving notice to South America that the Monroe Doctrine was being interpreted to serve US interests, largely gave way to economic predominance due to the relative lack of importance of foreign trade (combined imports/exports as a percentage of GDP did not exceed 10% until 1973, which meant the US's domestic production capacity was just about sufficient to allow for little economic vulnerability), and the lucky accident of having no damage at all to its productive capacity after World War 2. While other nations were rebuilding, the US was advancing - why else did US corporations end up dominating the planet as late as the 1970s, and are still a powerful force today?

2. The US's military strength is only of value if it does not have to actually be used. Once used, weaknesses become evident, and it becomes less useful as a saber to rattle.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 12 November 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact that skdadl is whacking me with her broomstick (it’s just a left-over from her Halloween costume...I’m implying nothing here) tells me something.
Posting something that transparent says so much more about you than it does Skdadl. Leftover Halloween costume...suuuuuure. Have you no impulse control whatsoever?

And there may be some agreement between you and others, but that nonesense about the lesser role the US played in arming the Middle East reveals where you're really coming from. You're still not up to admitting the full weight of responsibility the US has for fucking up the planet. They haven't done it alone, but dollar for dollar, they sure as hell have financed and militarily staffed the whole hideous venture for over half a century.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 November 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
David Miller has a broom, too. (SHH is not gonna get that reference. )

And you should see my pointy hat.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca