6 ms·

Um. Why on earth would the article mention that? What does US foreign policy have to do with the life and work of one academic/writer? Are you under the impr

by jholman 14y ago

Um. Why on earth would the article mention that? What does US foreign policy have to do with the life and work of one academic/writer? Are you under the impression that all Americans (e.g. the Executive branch, and Dr Sharp) are equivalent? Because they're not; they're actually pretty varied, and pursue opposing goals sometimes!

kprobst 14y ago
To paraphrase Jamie Zawinski, all online conversations about geopolitics expand until the United States is at fault.
- planetguy 14y ago
  That's a fabulous line, I'm going to remember that one.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    No, it's a useless line that sounds like ignorant whining. "Boo hoo, every time I go online someone complains about the US, why don't they just be quiet!"
- accountswu 14y ago
  Simple one-liners often work well to brush aside the real issues, you don't need an argument, just a simplistic phrase that plays with emotions is enough. May I suggest that you read about who was at fault at what place and when? The current Syrian dictatorship is not US-supported, neither are Iran and North Korea. Does that mean that Britain and US have no part in bringing Iran to where it is today (i.e. 1953)? Do you deny that 2 million Koreans were brutally murdered as a part of an imperial struggle in 1940s? Should we not mention that our one part Republo-crat government gives billions of dollars to dictators around the world and at the same time denies social services to its own citizens because we don't have enough money? I suggest another link if you're not familiar: https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+us+interventions+since+1945 https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+us+interventions+sin...
  - satu 14y ago
    I am on board with most of your points, I just wouldn't place too much emphasis on the "diplomatic" actions of America's past. You don't blame a country for its history, you learn from it, identify flaws in the system and change them.. (ie: Germany and Nazism, or U.S and slave trade). However, a major problem I think is willing blindness, for example: how many Iraqi deaths have been caused by Bush's WMD charade? A lancet study suggests 100,000's... but the American consciousness finds such a figure unconscionable, so it is not reported.
    - accountswu 14y ago
      satu, I agree with you, if the American support for dictatorships had ended then it would have been futile to mention the past. The problem is that this is how the situation is today and it's the same as it was 10 or 20 or 50 years ago. The Bush's WMD charade surely was indirectly responsible for killing far more than 100k Iraqi civilians, perhaps more than a million. The infamous leaks showed us that the US gov and military were lying about the numbers, the actual number of Iraqis they directly killed was close to 109k back then (no minutes of silence for them on any September day). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670#.T-p1rPWFk74 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-... Since you mentioned that, what is even less well-known is that Bill Clinton's administration "saved" 500k Iraqi infants from the Saddam regime between 1991 and 1996 by sanctions that refused everything including life-saving drugs into Iraq. What's reported even less frequently is that Secy of State Madeline Albright thought about it: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96) Remember who was in Iraq shaking hands with Saddam and delivering killing machines in 1980s? https://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+rumsfeld https://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+rumsfeld I'm not blaming fellow Americans for it, we're too busy watching celebrity gossip, who cares whether our tax money goes to kill thousands of protesters via dictators or to kill millions of civilians through our own machines.
- sanxiyn 14y ago
  Eh... because the United States often is at fault?
- molmalo 14y ago
  You should live outside USA for a while to check out why that happens... You don't have to go as far as the middle east, just go anywhere south of the border. Almost every coup in Central and South America was orchestrated with help, support and/or acceptance from the CIA and Pentagon. They trained and supported dictators (School of americas, national security doctrine, and so on), that ruled in support of their interests. That's why that's the sentiment in most of the world about the US government. Some people realize that it's not the main portion of the population the one to blame about this. But given that government after government has followed the same foreign policies, involving in every other nation's internal affairs, it's fair to ask: If the vast majority of the US population would have really opposed to this, there would have been a change by now. The only reason left, aside from indifference, is just that "the defense of the american way of life" seems to be far more important. The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.[1, 2] That explains it all. It doesn't really matters what happens in other countries as long as resources keeps moving, and money keeps flowing. Even if that means placing dictators all over the world. And that is why you end up with that kind of statements. It won't change, unless your governments start to change. And it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.[3] [1] http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 [2] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-con... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-...
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    I can't tell if this is a parody or not! A perfect example of kprobst's point with the added comedy bonus that you threw a rant about oil in there too!
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      If you can't tell that probably means you haven't spent any real time outside the US (and being on a military base in a foreign country doesn't count). I'm glad all the suffering that the US military causes is humorous to you though.
accountswu 14y ago
Why on earth would an article about struggle against dictatorship mention the main force that keeps the dictators in place (i.e. money, the weapons, diplomatic support) when talking about the "dictator's worst nightmare?" I never suggested that Gene Sharp represents the government or that all Americans are equivalent but it's funny to attribute the recent Arab protests to some book written by Gene Sharp, these movements are homegrown. Another commentator mentioned Gandhi, his nonviolence didn't force the British out, the threat of violent independence struggle was very real if the British didn't leave. Behind Martin Luther King there was Malcolm X. Nelson Mandela's ANC was called a "terrorist group" by the US in their struggle against apartheid (Mandela's name was on terror list until mid 2008). https://www.google.com/search?q=mandela+terrorist+list https://www.google.com/search?q=mandela+terrorist+list
batista 14y ago
>Um. Why on earth would the article mention that? What does US foreign policy have to do with the life and work of one academic/writer? Because 99% of "academics writers" on such issues push US foreign policy, with very few exceptions, like Chomsky (which is not an academic in those fields of study, anyway). Think tanks even more so. This very article, for example, targets US's target du jour, Iran.

by jholman 14y ago

kprobst 14y ago

To paraphrase Jamie Zawinski, all online conversations about geopolitics expand until the United States is at fault.

planetguy 14y ago
That's a fabulous line, I'm going to remember that one.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  No, it's a useless line that sounds like ignorant whining. "Boo hoo, every time I go online someone complains about the US, why don't they just be quiet!"
accountswu 14y ago
Simple one-liners often work well to brush aside the real issues, you don't need an argument, just a simplistic phrase that plays with emotions is enough. May I suggest that you read about who was at fault at what place and when? The current Syrian dictatorship is not US-supported, neither are Iran and North Korea. Does that mean that Britain and US have no part in bringing Iran to where it is today (i.e. 1953)? Do you deny that 2 million Koreans were brutally murdered as a part of an imperial struggle in 1940s? Should we not mention that our one part Republo-crat government gives billions of dollars to dictators around the world and at the same time denies social services to its own citizens because we don't have enough money? I suggest another link if you're not familiar: https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+us+interventions+since+1945 https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+us+interventions+sin...
- satu 14y ago
  I am on board with most of your points, I just wouldn't place too much emphasis on the "diplomatic" actions of America's past. You don't blame a country for its history, you learn from it, identify flaws in the system and change them.. (ie: Germany and Nazism, or U.S and slave trade). However, a major problem I think is willing blindness, for example: how many Iraqi deaths have been caused by Bush's WMD charade? A lancet study suggests 100,000's... but the American consciousness finds such a figure unconscionable, so it is not reported.
  - accountswu 14y ago
    satu, I agree with you, if the American support for dictatorships had ended then it would have been futile to mention the past. The problem is that this is how the situation is today and it's the same as it was 10 or 20 or 50 years ago. The Bush's WMD charade surely was indirectly responsible for killing far more than 100k Iraqi civilians, perhaps more than a million. The infamous leaks showed us that the US gov and military were lying about the numbers, the actual number of Iraqis they directly killed was close to 109k back then (no minutes of silence for them on any September day). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670#.T-p1rPWFk74 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-... Since you mentioned that, what is even less well-known is that Bill Clinton's administration "saved" 500k Iraqi infants from the Saddam regime between 1991 and 1996 by sanctions that refused everything including life-saving drugs into Iraq. What's reported even less frequently is that Secy of State Madeline Albright thought about it: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/ Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96) Remember who was in Iraq shaking hands with Saddam and delivering killing machines in 1980s? https://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+rumsfeld https://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+rumsfeld I'm not blaming fellow Americans for it, we're too busy watching celebrity gossip, who cares whether our tax money goes to kill thousands of protesters via dictators or to kill millions of civilians through our own machines.
sanxiyn 14y ago
Eh... because the United States often is at fault?
molmalo 14y ago
You should live outside USA for a while to check out why that happens... You don't have to go as far as the middle east, just go anywhere south of the border. Almost every coup in Central and South America was orchestrated with help, support and/or acceptance from the CIA and Pentagon. They trained and supported dictators (School of americas, national security doctrine, and so on), that ruled in support of their interests. That's why that's the sentiment in most of the world about the US government. Some people realize that it's not the main portion of the population the one to blame about this. But given that government after government has followed the same foreign policies, involving in every other nation's internal affairs, it's fair to ask: If the vast majority of the US population would have really opposed to this, there would have been a change by now. The only reason left, aside from indifference, is just that "the defense of the american way of life" seems to be far more important. The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.[1, 2] That explains it all. It doesn't really matters what happens in other countries as long as resources keeps moving, and money keeps flowing. Even if that means placing dictators all over the world. And that is why you end up with that kind of statements. It won't change, unless your governments start to change. And it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.[3] [1] http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 [2] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-con... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-...
- mattmanser 14y ago
  I can't tell if this is a parody or not! A perfect example of kprobst's point with the added comedy bonus that you threw a rant about oil in there too!
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    If you can't tell that probably means you haven't spent any real time outside the US (and being on a military base in a foreign country doesn't count). I'm glad all the suffering that the US military causes is humorous to you though.

accountswu 14y ago

Why on earth would an article about struggle against dictatorship mention the main force that keeps the dictators in place (i.e. money, the weapons, diplomatic support) when talking about the "dictator's worst nightmare?" I never suggested that Gene Sharp represents the government or that all Americans are equivalent but it's funny to attribute the recent Arab protests to some book written by Gene Sharp, these movements are homegrown. Another commentator mentioned Gandhi, his nonviolence didn't force the British out, the threat of violent independence struggle was very real if the British didn't leave. Behind Martin Luther King there was Malcolm X. Nelson Mandela's ANC was called a "terrorist group" by the US in their struggle against apartheid (Mandela's name was on terror list until mid 2008). https://www.google.com/search?q=mandela+terrorist+list https://www.google.com/search?q=mandela+terrorist+list

batista 14y ago

>Um. Why on earth would the article mention that? What does US foreign policy have to do with the life and work of one academic/writer? Because 99% of "academics writers" on such issues push US foreign policy, with very few exceptions, like Chomsky (which is not an academic in those fields of study, anyway). Think tanks even more so. This very article, for example, targets US's target du jour, Iran.