You sit in a restaurant like this one and see families relaxing with their children playing and having fun late at night and you feel that there’s ‘something’ wrong in the way MSM is dealing with the Iraqi issue. I watch TV and I see hell breaking around me then I go outside and see enough normalcy AND progress to make me believe that the people in the media are not here to report how’s life going but rather they are here reporting pre-prepared stories and to be faced with something that contradicts the picture they have in their minds would be really annoying and will mean more hard work to try to find the truth or something close to it. (Iraq The Model)
Ryan says: There are a lot of good Iraqi blogs, which is in itself rather telling.
Ryan says: Prior to the war, under Saddam, there was one, ONE Iraqi blog, and that guy had to be anonymous, or he probably would have been shot in the head and dragged through the street. Now there are over 30 Iraqi blogs.
Jody says: interesting, then why are Americans getting such a poor reception at the Olympics and especially by Iraqi athletes...just an observation, not to be confrontational (OK, Paul Hamm aside is what I mean, and the dream team men's basketball too)
Ryan says: Because we Americans are, obviously, militant, conquering barbarians who are oil-thirsty, fat thugs who have no regard for human life, that's why.
Jody says: I understand that but what gets me, is if it wasn't for US involvement, the Iraqi soccer team wouldn't be there...
Ryan says: Oh, they'd maybe be there, but. . .
Jody says: I remember seeing a documentary about how they weren't allowed to play and the soccer fields were literally killing fields...
Ryan says: It's the tough thing about Democracy in action, you see. The reporters drool over Iraqi soccer players (who didn't even play, mind you) saying what they think about the American occupation, yet the reporters fail to appreciate the fact that those Iraqi soccer players actually have the freedom now to say such things without the fear of Uday beating their feet with a baseball bat when they get home.
Jody says: that would hurt
Posted by Ryan at August 24, 2004 04:46 PM
over the past year or so i've noticed this same thing in that many of my friends who have gone to Iraq and come back have these wonderful stories about neighborhood rehabilitation, new freedoms, health and human services, etc., and unless you're looking very very hard you never ever see that in the media.
my question is, why doesn't the Administration PUSH for these positive stories to be continually published? i'm not all too clear on the relationship between the White House and the media to begin with, but it would seem that the white house could "request" positive stories to be run, right?
i understand that people only like to see/read car crashes in the news. but it really evades me as to why an Administration that needs so badly for Americans to believe we've done a good thing can't sort of work to "punch up" the amount of positive news coming out of Iraq.
Posted by: leblanc at August 24, 2004 06:38 PMI don't know, leblanc. I guess I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that we won't hear stuff like this from established media outlets. If it bleeds, it leads, as they say. However, there is a wealth of emerging Iraqi blogs that I prowl daily that give me an update on both the good and bad news. It's just kind of odd to think I have to rely on blogs to get a more balanced picture of unfolding events. You'd think the established media would realize that blogs are usurping them at almost every turn, but I guess not.
Posted by: Ryan at August 25, 2004 09:11 AMBlogs can usurp regular media in content until the cows come home and it makes no difference. At this time blogs do not have the audience that the mainstream media does.
Posted by: amelia at August 25, 2004 10:29 AMYes, Amelia, and at the unveiling of television during the 1939 World Fair was greeted with curiosity, but no one thought it would seriously take off. By 2010, I think blogs will be an integral part of the Big Media, if not an entity all by itself that is just as big, if not bigger, than the established Big Media.
Posted by: Ryan at August 25, 2004 10:38 AMCome on now, Ryan, you know the cardinal rule of news broadcasting, If it bleeds, it leads. No one cares about the rebuilding effort. No one cares that life is getting better for the people of Iraq, the big Media decides that we need to know about a roadside bombing rather than the construction of a new hospital.
And its part of the reason why I like getting at least some of my news from blogs who don't necessarily have a huge financial stake in prolonging the unhappiness.
Posted by: Johnny Huh? at August 25, 2004 11:13 AMRyan says: It's the tough thing about Democracy in action, you see. The reporters drool over Iraqi soccer players (who didn't even play, mind you) saying what they think about the American occupation, yet the reporters fail to appreciate the fact that those Iraqi soccer players actually have the freedom now to say such things without the fear of Uday beating their feet with a baseball bat when they get home.
Once when I was in high school the Marines tried to recruit me. It was in that five minutes between classes and I was walking down the hall to get to my history class and these two Marines who were on their way to a recruitment seminar saw me from halfway down the hall (half a block away), and started yelling and chasing me down the hall. It took me a minute to realize that they were after me. Then another minute to realize why they were after me, in spite of my ponytail and my tiedye; I was a full head taller than anyone standing near me, and half again as broad.
When they caught up to me they told me that I was clearly born to be a Marine. To which I responded that, what with the Cold War winding down and all, I didn't really think the Marines were likely to be much needed for defensive wars and that it therefore followed, to my perception at least, that from here on out the Marines often would be deployed to foreign wars that probably weren't going to have much to do with the direct defense of America and her borders— and were quite likely, instead, to have everything to do with protecting American political and financial interests abroad —and that I didn't really feel it was moral to go to war over stuff like that.
The two Marines blinked at me for several seconds while this suggestion percolated through their cute little walnut-sized brains and then one of them said,
"Well, that's fine. We fight and die so you can have that opinion and express it in public."
Which immediately made me want to sock him right in his chiseled jaw. And, lest anyone think that a hippie vs. Marine fight would have a foregone conclusion, I did beat the crap out of an Army Ranger in an unrelated incident about six months later.
The thing that pissed me off then, and still pisses me off today, is simply this: rights aren't given. They're taken away. I don't have to thank anyone for my right to free speech. I don't have to thank anyone for my right to free assembly. I don't have to thank anyone for any of that stuff. What I have to do is, I have to be willing to fight for those things. When I see a credible threat to those freedoms, I'll fight.
Having Mister Soldier of Fortune telling me that he was responsible for my freedom touched a nerve that got its first tweaking when I was 5 and my sister did that thing where she followed me around the house— and every time I did something like, say, opening the door, she'd say, "I made you open that door with my mind powers."
So yeah. U.S. troops got rid of Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, we didn't really ask the Iraqis about that before we did it. So they're free. But also, a bunch of them have died horribly, in a fairly visible fashion, and the U.S. government seems to have gone out of its way to avoid talking about that.
The idea that the only appropriate employment for the Iraqis' newfound freedom is to kiss America's ass is pretty hard for me to swallow. It has the stink of that circular Judeo-Christian concept of "free will": God gave us free will so that we can choose to worship Him. We have free will, but we should be aware that using it to make choices God doesn't approve of is a one-way ticket to the hot place.
I don't know. Evidently the whole world owes its gratitude to the northern half of the United States. Everybody owes. Everybody pays.
Hey? You know what? Stop putting words in my mouth just for a moment, mmkay Joshua.
I never said I expected the Iraqi people to kiss our feet and say "hey, thanks." I simply pointed out, and rightly so, that Iraqis now, in their current state, can speak out against the American occupation and not expect to be hung by their testicles when they get home. There's some freedom there, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not asking for accolades for the U.S. military and U.S. actions, but a little acknowledgement of positive change sure wouldn't hurt.
Posted by: Ryan at August 25, 2004 01:05 PMwhether you want to admit it or not.
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths...
Posted by: Joshua at August 25, 2004 01:37 PMHere's Iraqi Olympic policy under Uday:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/
"I don't have to thank anyone for my right to free speech. I don't have to thank anyone for my right to free assembly. I don't have to thank anyone for any of that stuff."
Joshua -- at the least, you have some old dead white men to thank. You know, Jefferson, Washington, those guys. The freedoms we enjoy in the USA did not simply spring forth from the earth like bubblin' crude. Whether you admit it or not, it's built on the blood of a lot of people who went before (and including that of people who fought a lot more recently than 1776).
And now, the freedom that those Iraqi athletes have to speak their minds is built on the blood of Americans, plain and simple.
Posted by: Strider at August 25, 2004 10:38 PMJoshua -- at the least, you have some old dead white men to thank. You know, Jefferson, Washington, those guys. The freedoms we enjoy in the USA did not simply spring forth from the earth like bubblin' crude.
Yeah.
Strider? This is John Locke. John Locke, this is Strider. Strider evidently didn't learn about natural rights in high school, so he needs a refresher course in the concept which boils down to:
"The freedoms we enjoy as human beings do, in fact, spring up out of the ground like bubbling crude."
See, how it works is, I can do whatever I feel like doing until someone tries to stop me. When someone tries to stop me, they're alterning the natural state of things (the state of things where I do whatever I feel like doing). Think of it like physics: things do what they do until a force acts upon them. Someone pushes me, I can choose to push back or not. A government is a state of affairs in which a group of people decide not to push back in exchange for certain protections that can only be had through collective action.
But make no mistake: government is an adulteration of the human condition.
And now, the freedom that those Iraqi athletes have to speak their minds is built on the blood of Americans, plain and simple.
Simple? Horseshit.
Hey, Strider, how'd Saddam Hussein stay in power? Guns. Bombs. Helicopters. Money. Where'd Saddam Hussein get all that money? Oil. Who bought the oil? Well, up to a point, we did. And kind of on and on like that. The moral of the story isn't that the United States is responsible for Saddam Hussein. It's partly true, but it's not very true. The moral of the story is that it's not simple. And if Iraqi freedom is built on the blood of Americans, American cars are fueled by the blood of Iraqis.
But of course, you can't hear that.
Read a book. It might loosen up that blockage.
Posted by: Joshua at August 26, 2004 12:09 AMMy cat's breath smells like cat food.
Posted by: Simon at August 26, 2004 07:14 AMjoshua makes some good points about natural vs. obstructed behavior. i suppose a great round of applause would be do the usa IF we went into iraq for selfless reasons. but who's kidding who? the state of the saddam-era iraqi people, though it is a common talking piont, is not near the top of the list of reasons to into iraq. BTW, see also: france. uncle sam served himself first, if others benefited from his actions, fine. there are no selfless actions.
Posted by: seed at August 26, 2004 12:24 PMJoshua, I actually agree with you theory (or Locke's as it may be) about rights, in broad terms of what they should be (which is why, for example, I am a strong proponent of gun rights -- a free people needs to retain the physical ability to "push back" or their freedom becomes remarkably fragile). That theory, however has little basis in the real world, for the simple reason that not everyone plays along.
In the real world, you have whatever rights you can physically hang on to. If speaking freely is going to get you a bullet in the back of the head, then you don't have the right to free speech.
Putting it another way: in Saddam's Iraq (or Hitler's Germany, or any other brutal dictatorship) you had the physical ability to say anything you wanted. However, if you _used_ that "right", you were quick to discover that you also have the "right" to disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.
Yes, you may push back (as the dead white men referenced above did, successfully, in the late 1700s), but if you don't succeed, then either the right has been taken from you, or in fact you never had it in the first place.
Posted by: Strider at August 27, 2004 03:44 PMIn the real world, you have whatever rights you can physically hang on to. If speaking freely is going to get you a bullet in the back of the head, then you don't have the right to free speech.
Ah yes, the "in the real world" arguments.
So, Strider. If I, as a private citizen, kidnap you out of your house in the middle of the night and take you to a remote location and lock you in a basement bound and gagged, have I curtailed your rights or have I violated them?
If I were working for the government and did the same thing, would I have curtailed your rights or violated them?
If a foreign power gave military aid to a domestic dictator who took over our government and created a secret police force that took you out of your house in the middle of the night, took you to a remote location and locked you in a basement, bound and gagged-- would your rights have been curtailed or violated?
Posted by: Joshua at August 27, 2004 05:56 PM"(H)ave I curtailed your rights or have I violated them?"
What practical difference does it make?
I've had this argument before with others: A "RIGHT" is, for all practical purposes, what the society you live in believes it to be, and actually defends. The Sudanese attacking Darfur believe they have a "right" to rape and murder. Nobody's stopping them. (Most especially not those paragons of righteousness and virtue, the UN.) Are they "curtailing" the rights of their victims or "violating" them, and do their victims really give a damn which definition you choose? And do those victims in fact have any rights? If so, what good are they?
If your society will not defend it, and if you cannot defend it yourself, what good does your right of any kind do you when someone else wants to violate it?
"The freedoms we enjoy as human beings do, in fact, spring up out of the ground like bubbling crude." Bullshit. You said yourself "What I have to do is, I have to be willing to fight for those things. When I see a credible threat to those freedoms, I'll fight."
The problem with that mindset is that sometimes you don't see the credible threat until it's eaten you. On top of that, human beings have an uncanny ability to not look at credible threats, to downplay them, to ignore them and hope that they'll go away. That's why we have militaries - to deter the threats and keep them less than credible. And that's why we need chiseled-jawed young men - with, mind you, brains considerably larger than walnuts - who are willing to do the job you are apparently not willing to thank them for.
"Thank you, but no," would be an appropriate response. (This is, after all, a nominally free country.) Calling them "walnut-brained" was inappropriate. Try to be a little less swell-headed about your supposed intellectual superiority.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at August 27, 2004 08:16 PM"Have I curtailed your rights or have I violated them?"
Kevin responded quite nicely to this already, but to add a brief note to that:
Whether my right has been "curtailed" or "violated", I don't effectively have it anymore until you (by whatever means) lose the ability to curtail or violate it.
It's like arguing that a paralysed person has the right to do cartwheels. That "right" is academic and completely meaningless if it is impossible for them to do so.
So perhaps the statement should be restated slightly. Your ability to actually act upon your natural rights is indeed protected by those in the military who fight and die to protect them. (Whether the fighting in Iraq in specific is doing this is a different argument). Having the rights but being unable to exercise them (as you seem to believe Iraqis under Saddam did) is academic, and in the real world, meaningless.
Seed --
Are you arguing that France did not owe the USA any thanks after WWII because liberating them from Germany was not a completely selfless act?
strider
i'm pointing out that primary motivation to liberate france may not have been as altruistic as some people make it out to be. should the usa get some recognition, or gratitude, sure. let's not kidd ourselves and think that our primary motivation was the french populace. at times, it feels like the usa is fishing for accolades. france would have an equal position to ours if it cited their assistance in the usa's infancy. the door does swing both ways. our involvement in WW2 has a tendancy to be used as our trump card. this might feed some of the animosity towards us.
What practical difference does it make?
Well, go look the word "violate" up in the dictionary. Then go look the word "curtail" up in the dictionary. Compare and contrast the meanings. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics with you.
As far as this crap about how a right is only what the society you live in believes it to be...
Riddle me this, Captain Solipsism: how many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
"The freedoms we enjoy as human beings do, in fact, spring up out of the ground like bubbling crude."
Bullshit. You said yourself "What I have to do is, I have to be willing to fight for those things. When I see a credible threat to those freedoms, I'll fight."
The problem with that mindset is that sometimes you don't see the credible threat until it's eaten you.
Yeah. So me calling some Marines walnut-brained is inappropriate, but a guiding principle of your worldview is that regular people are too stupid and shortsighted to make informed decisions about what constitutes a credible threat to their freedom?
who are willing to do the job you are apparently not willing to thank them for.
Yeah, except oh, hey, look at that: I have thanked them. I thank them for doing a job. But that doesn't mean they're responsible for my freedoms. In fact, there is a larger context in which what they do is often destructive to my freedoms. They're not in a position to address that point, so I generally don't blame them for it. But the fact of it is that, for most of my life, the U.S. military has been much more a tool of empire than a guarantor of my freedoms.
There is a very small chance that I will someday have to fight for my basic freedoms. An infinitesimally small chance that circumstances may someday actually make it necessary for me to kill someone in order to protect my rights. And if that day were to come, who would I be aiming a rifle at? A Korean soldier? An Arab guerilla?
Very doubtful. If I ever have to pick up a gun and blow somebody's head off in order to protect the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights-- in the astronomically unlikely chance that such a thing is ever actually required by practical necessity --the strongest odds suggest I'd be shooting at a U.S. Marine.
I mean, hell dude, at what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
So, you know, with extremely rare exceptions, I don't look at the U.S. military and see the saviors of my liberty.
Try to be a little less swell-headed about your supposed intellectual superiority
Oh, fuck you. Seriously, Kevin. If thinking I'm smarter than a guy who's telling me I was clearly born to be a Marine because I'm over six feet tall is the worst sin of pride I ever commit, I pretty sure I'll still make it into heaven.
"Captain Solipsism"? Well, I've been called a lot of things, but that's new.
Here's a clue: We ARE arguing semantics. On a practical level. And as to the dog analogy, philosophy ain't physics, and it certainly isn't veteranary medicine. How many legs does a dog have if a psychopath cuts them all off?
"...a guiding principle of your worldview is that regular people are too stupid and shortsighted to make informed decisions about what constitutes a credible threat to their freedom?" And I said that,... where? Shall I remind you of "peace in our time?" The little incident of 9/11?
If some of our world leaders are unable or unwilling to face or even recognize difficult facts, why should some "regular people" be any different? Some people look and see threats. Some look at the same thing and do not. Some people are paranoid. Some are not. And some are in denial. You want to wait until a threat is obvious and imminent. Sometimes that's too late to do any good.
"...for most of my life, the U.S. military has been much more a tool of empire than a guarantor of my freedoms." That's one of my favorite claims, that the U.S. is an empire. Really? What nations have we conquered in your lifetime that we demand annual tribute from? What countries have we conquered in your lifetime that we haven't rebuilt, put back under autonomous local control, and then TRADED WITH? Hardly the behavior of an empire. The idea of empire is antithetical to a Republic, and we at least resemble the latter much more than the former. Or are you one who believes that the invasion of Afghanistan was over a pipeline (still unbuilt) and cheap Iraqi oil (that we aren't loading onto tankers and shipping to the U.S. at gunpoint)?
I read the link - damned nice piece. Too bad you apparently seem to have a problem with saying "Thank you" on any other day. Now, check your reading comprehension. They are not solely responsible for your freedoms. They are partially responsible, by providing a bulwark against those who would take your rights. And, indeed, there is the uncomfortable possibility that they might be at the pointy-end if and/or when it's the .gov that decides that you don't need all those pesky rights. But you are damning them for what might be, rather than seeing what is.
And while your quotation was valid when originally spoken, there is the (faint) possibility that China might put to lie the claims it made. A country with a population of about a billion more than the U.S., in which there are over 10 million more young men than young women, and with a govermnent not shy about spending human bodies could very well one day decide to "step the ocean," and you might very well have to fight for your basic freedoms. The Chinese certainly don't recognize them.
Oh, and good luck on that heaven thing.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at August 28, 2004 09:16 PMWe ARE arguing semantics. On a practical level.
No, you're arguing semantics, and it's a cheap dodge. My initial point was that a non-consensual government doesn't abrogate rights, it violates them. In a democratic government, up to a point, the rights of criminals may be said to be curtailed rather than violated because a certain degree of consent is implied by participation in civic life prior to the surrender of liberty vis-Ă -vis "getting arrested".
Strider's proposition was that one only has those freedoms one can physically hang onto. What I was getting at with my response is that, if a government or organization were to threaten me with physical violence if I exercised my right to free speech, and they were doing so without my consent (implied or explicit), that wouldn't mean I no longer had the right to free speech. That would mean I would have the option of surrendering my right to free speech. Or I could let them commit violence against me. Or, third and much more likely option, I could temporarily abnegate my right to free speech while I made arrangements to deal with the people who were threatening me. My right to free speech doesn't disappear with the threat of a bullet to the back of the head. Even then, I have a choice.
That's the difference between the ideal of freedom and these embarrassing discussions of "rights" that are "granted" to me by some political or economic body.
And I said that,... where? Shall I remind you of "peace in our time?" The little incident of 9/11?
Remind me of 9/11? Yeah, sure, Kevin. Remind me of 9/11. Somehow I'd managed to forget all about 9/11. In fact, I'm sitting here thinking and I just can't seem to remember what it means, these numbers and symbols... hm. 9/11... 9/11... yeah. I'm drawing a complete blank. Why don't you remind me?
You know, again, if you're going to cop this attitude about me and my "swelled head" about my "supposed intellectual superiority", you might want to turn down that condescension just a skosh there, fucksuck.
Otherwise, as far as the question of "[you] said that... where?" you said:
The problem with that mindset... [snip] ...credible.
Which I took to mean that you thought most people were too thick to recognize a threat, and that the military was a better judge. I see now I misunderstood you. What you were actually getting at was something along the lines of:
If some of our... [snip] ...You want to wait until a threat is obvious and imminent. Sometimes that's too late to do any good.
So, basically, you're advocating paranoia. Well, whatever. If paranoia's attractive to you, certainly nothing I can say is going to talk you down. So, with the explicit understanding that you don't care what I think, I'll just stipulate that I think you're being a chump. That's by way of saving us time in the future. So, like, if you ever feel the need to try and sell me on the idea that 19 guys with boxcutters constituted a credible threat to national security, or that a beefed up intelligence program could possibly have headed off such a fundamentally simple plan without turning the entire country into a permanent police state, you can just remember that think you're a great big chump and keep that one to yourself.
And while your quotation was valid when originally spoken, there is the (faint) possibility that China might put to lie the claims it made. [snip] ...to "step the ocean," and you might very well have to fight for your basic freedoms.
Yeah. Speaking of ways in which you're a great big paranoid chump:
China's military budget (2003): $22.4 billion (possibly as high as $55 billion)
U.S. military budget (2003): $399.1 billion
Chinese nuclear weapons: approximately 400 warheads, mostly land-based
U.S. nuclear weapons: approximately 10,240 warheads, multiple deployment platforms
So that basically settles the question of China's ability to actually stage a successful invasion of the United States (and let's all keep in mind that, recent differences notwithstanding, the EU and NATO would rain hell down on China for even attempting such a thing).
There's also, of course, the question of why China would invade the United States. I know people in the U.S. like to think everyone else sits around hating us all the time, field-stripping their AK-47s and dreaming warm sloppy dreams of sacrificing millions of soldiers in a massive human-wave invasion of North America so they can... hang out in our strip malls and play in our theme parks or something. But, what with their exploding AIDS epidemic and their ongoing struggle for democratic social reforms, it's possible-- just possible, mind you --that the average Chinese person doesn't give the idea of invading the U.S. much thought at all. And, who knows, their government may have other spending priorities.
Oh, hey, I almost forgot this one:
That's one of my favorite claims, that the U.S. is an empire. Really? What nations have we conquered in your lifetime that we demand annual tribute from?
Annual tribute? Dude. What the fuck are you talking about?
What countries have we conquered in your lifetime that we haven't rebuilt, put back under autonomous local control, and then TRADED WITH? Hardly the behavior of an empire.
Actually, that's pretty much the definition of empire.
"Strider's proposition was that one only has those freedoms one can physically hang onto."
Generally speaking, that's on a societal level, not an individual level. People in a society have the rights that they are willing and able to hang on to. (along the lines of Kevin's statement that a right is "what the society you live in believes it to be, and actually defends")
"I'll just stipulate that I think you're being a chump.... So, like, if you ever feel the need to try and sell me on the idea that 19 guys with boxcutters constituted a credible threat to national security.... you can just remember that think you're a great big chump and keep that one to yourself."
Yeah, we would have been real chumps to think that those guys could do any damage. WTF Joshua??? I'm not insisting that we _could_ have done anything, but what's the point of saying that anyone who thinks they could have done any damage is a paranoid chump??? They did do damage! Massive damage.
"What countries have we conquered in your lifetime that we haven't rebuilt, put back under autonomous local control, and then TRADED WITH? Hardly the behavior of an empire."
"Actually, that's pretty much the definition of empire."
em·pire n.
1. a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.
2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: “There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians” (James Traub).
Empire would be annexing them as colonies ("protectorates", whatever) under our control. What the USA does is hardly empire building.
"So, basically, you're advocating paranoia."
There's a more appropriate word there: Vigilance.
Posted by: Strider at August 29, 2004 10:19 AMThey did do damage! Massive damage.
Not really. And don't let's get into a lot of recriminations about how everybody felt about the 9/11 attacks and what a sick insensitive bastard I am. How, "it sure felt massive to those people in New York." I'm sick of hearing emotional arguments to support a political agenda.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if there was a 9/11-sized attack once a month every month, there would still be more Americans dying from car accidents. In 2000 approximately 40,000 Americans were killed in car accidents and the federal government estimated the financial cost of traffic accidents in the U.S. at $231 billion that year. And the moral of the story isn't that we should declare war on cars. The moral of the story is that America sustains those kinds of material losses to its population and its economy pretty much as a matter of course. Most people aren't even aware it's happening. Forty thousand people and $231 billion a year and it's background noise in our culture.
Most of the real damage inflicted during 9/11 was political and phsychological. Much of the economic damage caused by the attacks was a result of those two factors. But in terms of the attacks themselves-- the physical harm done by them --in the scheme of things, they really weren't that big a deal. I make that judgment by comparing them to things like car accidents, or people murdered with handguns-- perfectly preventable problems with massive mortality rates that Americans, as a people, don't even notice most of the time.
One of my best friends in the world was less than two blocks from WTC when it happened. She could have died that day. But the odds are much better that I'll lose her to a car accident or accidental food poisoning or a mugger or a rapist or any one of a hundred other preventable problems that nobody's going to completely re-structure the federal government and invade two countries in order to protect her from.
Empire would be annexing them as colonies ("protectorates", whatever) under our control. What the USA does is hardly empire building.
Okay. Just as a point of order: Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and Gitmo.
More broadly, suppose there was a little island nation in the Caribbean that went communist and nationalized its resources and industry. If the United States invaded that nation and smashed the communist government and installed a capitalist government, that could be viewed as liberation. Except a capitalist government can sell its resources and industry to, say, business interests in the United States, at "market rates".
Alternatively, that small capitalist governments might take out loans from the IMF in order to improve their industry. And those loans might require them to privatize, for example, their water resources. And here again, U.S. corporations could purchase thos resources at "market rates".
And kind of on and on like that.
So if we were to invade a place (like Iraq) and install a western-style democratic government that would privatize, say, oil resources, nobody would have to steal anything. U.S. corporations, the richest in the world, could just outbid everyone else for control of the production facilities, then leverage that control to jack prices and pay off their investment.
Of course we rebuild the countries we invade. Of course we trade with them. We want them nice and stable so they'll buy cars and DVD players, and so nobody will try to blow up our factories. The paramount importance of control is the distinguishing characteristic of corporate ("planning system" or "technocracy") capitalism. Cref. Galbraith, Burnham, "game theory", etc.
And, by the way, I use the words "we" and "our" kind of loosely here. What's good for U.S. corporations is not necessarilly good for the U.S.
In any event, the point is that converting a small poor country to a "democratic" "capitalist" country with an open trading policy that allows foreign companies to buy up all their resources and industry fits the second and third definitions of "empire" that you cite and strongly suggests the first one.
Posted by: Joshua at August 29, 2004 01:48 PM"Most of the real damage inflicted during 9/11 was political and phsychological. Much of the economic damage caused by the attacks was a result of those two factors. But in terms of the attacks themselves-- the physical harm done by them --in the scheme of things, they really weren't that big a deal."
Well, no kidding. The purpose of terrorism is to cause fear. But you can't just count bodies and call it a day. A trillion dollars of damage was done to our economy in one day. A lot of it was caused by the companies that were outright destroyed, and a lot of it was caused by the, yes, emotional response to the attacks -- but the cause of the damage doesn't make it any less real.
I'm suddenly reminded of a quandry I refer to as "Spock's Dilemma". In the old Star Trek shows, Spock was always confused by human emotion because he didn't have any. He always acted, however as though he didn't understand that emotions exist in humans, even when, logically, emotions do exist and are real. Looking at a situation logically, he always failed to recognize their existence -- which was an illogical thing to do.
Your argument reminds me of this, because you sound as though you're saying that the attacks only killed 3,000 people (or so), and all the economic damage caused by fear, such as the devastating impact on the airline industry, simply should never have happened.
The physical damage done directly by the attacks was, as you say, not massive in the grand scheme of things. But the political and emotional damage was just as real (as was the damage resulting thereof), and was also caused by the attacks. In fact, I would suggest that they were the true purpose of the attacks.
"Of course we rebuild the countries we invade. Of course we trade with them. We want them nice and stable so they'll buy cars and DVD players, and so nobody will try to blow up our factories."
Well let's go back to the "trump card" situation: World War II. The reason we rebuilt Germany (and Japan) is because not rebuilding Germany after World War I arguably caused the sequel.
Why do we rebuild? It's good for us because it's good for them. It's good for world stability, and the world economy (and yes, things get unstable during a war, or course. The hope is that the stability gained afterward is greater than what was before.)
"So if we were to invade a place (like Iraq) and install a western-style democratic government that would privatize, say, oil resources, nobody would have to steal anything. U.S. corporations, the richest in the world, could just outbid everyone else for control of the production facilities"
Oh, I get it. We did it because we wanted to steal/purchase-at-a-low-low-price the oil. Please.
If we were simply after cheap oil, we would have cut a secret deal with Saddam directly, and bought it for a lot lower price than the money (and blood) spent so far on the war. Or we would have simply taken it 12 years ago.
"We ARE arguing semantics. On a practical level."
"No, you're arguing semantics, and it's a cheap dodge. My initial point was that a non-consensual government doesn't abrogate rights, it violates them."
Which is a semantic argument. The point is that, whichever semantic label you want to slap on the situation ("abrogated" or "violated") if you ain't got 'em, you ain't got 'em. The Iraqis could not speak freely before; now they can. They could not compete in the Olympics for fear of being tortured. Now they can.
And if some Iraqi citizen who was "a full head taller than anyone standing near [him], and half again as broad" had come along under Saddam, and decided to beat up the soldier who was violating his "natural rights", he might have successfully beaten up the one soldier, but he most likely would have soon found himself bound in a basement while watching a dozen thugs gang rape his wife/sister/mom/all-of-the-above before carving pieces out of him until he bleeds to death. Hopefully he would have been comforted by the knowledge that he had the right for that not to be happening to him.
Posted by: Strider at August 31, 2004 01:49 PMI'm suddenly reminded of a quandry I refer to as "Spock's Dilemma".
The one where he's surrounded by stupid people? I have that dilemma a lot on the internet.
Meanwhile, as to the question of fear: people can get used to anything. The specter of terrorism doesn't mean our entire country is going to collapse under its own fear. If there were more terrorist attacks in the U.S., they would become less effective as time went on. My argument wasn't that nobody should have been scared after 9/11. My point was that, because it's a psychological reaction, people will adapt to it and overcome it if necessary. That basic reality can and should temper our response to and handling of international terrorism.
Oh, I get it. We did it because we wanted to steal/purchase-at-a-low-low-price the oil. Please.
No, actually, you clearly don't get it. I didn't say we were after low-priced oil. If you read what I wrote you'll notice that I said that, "The paramount importance of control is the distinguishing characteristic of corporate ('planning system' or 'technocracy) capitalism. Cref. Galbraith, Burnham, 'game theory', etc."
The point isn't to get "cheap" oil and then sell it at a high "profit". Corporate economics often surrenders profit in order to acquire control. Stability of revenue streams is important because it allows for constant expansion. When profits dip and soar unpredictably, the revenue can't be counted on and so can't be used to fund new ventures or expand old ones. Stable income is more important than high income, and that's why we rebuild countries after we invade them; so we can control their economies and expand our enterprise on a reliable income stream.
The point is that, whichever semantic label you want to slap on the situation ("abrogated" or "violated") if you ain't got 'em, you ain't got 'em.
God you're thick sometimes.
Listen. Those two words have different meanings. As much to the point, they imply different things. So, for example, if I borrow money from you, you don't have the money. If I steal money from you, you don't have the money. But borrow and steal mean different things. So the distinction isn't just semantic. Ditto "violate" and "abrogate". One of them implies that the rights still exist in some way, and are merely being circumvented. The other one implies that they're just gone. It's different. How meaningful that difference is may depend on where you're standing. As someone who has had my rights violated by cops on numerous occasions, I consider the distinction fairly important. We'll see how you feel about it after your first strip search.
"Those two words have different meanings. As much to the point, they imply different things. So, for example, if I borrow money from you, you don't have the money. If I steal money from you, you don't have the money. But borrow and steal mean different things."
Yes, they mean different things, but when later I want a hamburger and there's no money in my wallet, I can't buy a hamburger. It really doesn't matter to the McDonald's cashier why there's no money in my wallet. I don't have money.
"As someone who has had my rights violated by cops on numerous occasions, I consider the distinction fairly important. We'll see how you feel about it after your first strip search."
First off -- Don't think I'm being smug about you having been screwed over by asshole cops -- I'm not. However...
Earlier you said, "When I see a credible threat to those freedoms, I'll fight." Did you slug it out with the cops? If not, Why Not? They were a threat to your freedoms. If you did slug it out, you must have ultimately failed, if they strip searched you anyway.
I'm not saying that's a good thing. The distinction I'm trying to make is that however important the difference was in theory, you still got a raw deal.
Might does not make right, but it generally decides the winners.
Posted by: Strider at September 1, 2004 12:26 PMQuick addendum --
Recently, something very important to my family was stolen. Do we have a right to property? Yes, in theory. But the thing is still gone, and it's not coming back. My "right" to have it is meaningless unless I find the person who took it AND by some bizarre chance he still has it AND I can get him to give it back (via intimidation or bargaining or calling the cops or whatever). Put out a reward for it even. No dice. Most likely it's been destroyed by now.
My rights on the matter are moot.
Posted by: Strider at September 1, 2004 12:33 PMDid you slug it out with the cops? If not, Why Not? They were a threat to your freedoms. If you did slug it out, you must have ultimately failed, if they strip searched you anyway.
This is the distinction you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping: cops have violated my rights, they haven't taken them away. Most cops are pigs, but I don't consider the problem of cops being pigs to be endemic to the United States criminal justice system. The system is trying to achieve something and falling short of its goal. The behavior of cops is the result of poor execution of a certain civic ideal.
My belief that I have recourse or that the situation can be improved-- even if I don't choose to spend the time to improve it --makes the interaction consensual, which changes the character of the situation. The cops aren't threatening my rights. They're not doing something that's going to remove those rights. They're violating them. They're threatening me. By my rights remain intact, whether the cops respect them or not.
If I get arrested in an illegal sweep, taken to jail and strip searched, I don't come away from that believing that I live in a country where I have no rights. I come away from that feeling that my rights have been violated.
If the cops were a force that was attempting to remove all recourse and abrogate my rights completely, I'd fight them. As it is they're just assholes who bend the rules. I may choose to fight them some other way, but I don't feel it's necessary to kill them over it.
Get it?
Stumble It!
