Thanks to everyone that watched the WTC presentation yesterday, and big thanks to Rannie for sending quite a few people my way. Most of you seemed to enjoy it and that’s a good thing. It does have a permanent home here, in the Image & Video Gallery. If you enjoyed the song featured throughout, and I think some of you did, it’s from a great Son Volt album titled Straightaways (Buy it: USA | Canada).
Tonight is cooking class so I’m getting ready for that. Should be a good time, I hope. Tonight is demonstration only and I’m away in Vegas next week so I won’t get to cook for real for another two weeks. Now, before I go, a slight rant:
Everyone seems to have done something different yesterday to commemorate the one year anniversary of 9/11. Some, like me, took the day off. Some blogged anyways. However, many others saw fit to dive with both feet into a shouting match at the television networks that broadcast the memorials and footage of the original attack all day yesterday. I have this to say – yesterday was not about you. As much as you want to pretend that the World is about you, this was not. If you didn’t like it, don’t watch. But then you would have missed the video of survivors who were thankful for the chance to tell their story. You would have missed the videos of men and women who lost a loved one in the attacks and were thankful for the chance to tell their story and attach a bit of closure to their year. These people are what matter, not you. These people were thankful that the major networks chose not to pretend that September 11th is just another day, because September 11th will never be just another day. The most irritating thing about all of this is the people that complained about the coverage are the same ones that would have been in line at the firing range if the networks had chose to move forward with their regularly scheduled programming with nary a mention of the events of last year. I think an awful lot of people need to get over themselves and appreciate what yesterday meant to a lot of men and women around the World that were personally and permanently affected by 9.11.01. If the coverage offered by the networks yesterday meant something to them, that’s what matters.
What’s so wrong about peace, love, and understanding anyways?
As one who complained about the media coverage of the 9/11 anniversary, I take strong issue with your comment and feel compelled to respond. CAUTION: lengthy and strongly worded opinions to follow…
What I found so obnoxious about the coverage in general was they way it elevated the suffering of the 9/11 victims above the suffering of, for example, the thousands of Afghanistani innocents killed by US bombs in its War on Terror (insert flashy CNN logo here). Many unbiased estimates tally the number of innocent Afghani citizens killed nearly equal to those who died in the WTC attacks (but you never here so much as a peep about this in US media). Is this justifiable? Are the deaths of innocent civilians in NYC any more appalling than the deaths of, for example, all those revellers at that Afghan wedding party who were bombed? From yesterday’s coverage you’d think so. As for what Wednesday meant to “a lot of men and women around the World that were personally and permanently affected by 9.11.01”, I found the coverage of the mourning to be tragically hypocritical and indicative of how the western media (especially in America) tend to apply an ugly double-standard, in this case indulging in our own glorious suffering with nary a mention of the thousands of innocent poeple in a faraway land who had their villages levelled and loved ones blown to bits as a direct result of the US vengeance for 9.11.01. (Not to mention the millions of innocents killed either directly or indirectly through the blatantly self-serving US foreign policy, but I won’t get into those numerous and sordid details here, except to say “spreading the light of freedom and democracy” my ass!)
I’m hardly demeaning anyone’s suffering here. I was in NYC recently and witnessed first-hand the terrible legacy of 9/11, and my friends who have lost friends have my every sympathy. I may be strongly critical of the US but I’m hardly insensitive to the thousands of stories of those who’ve lost someone, or the immense courage and compassion shown during that terrible time in NYC. Rather, I’m insisting that our compassion MUST be extended to the whole world, and its only then that this terror might have a chance to end. This is not just New York’s terror. But this is a terror much of the rest of the world has known a long time. 9.11.01 is just one in a long lineage of terrible atrocities, as most of the world already knows. Nothing new here folks. Instead, America has collectively acted like a vengeful pouty child who’s had its happy bubble burst.
“These people were thankful that the major networks chose not to pretend that September 11th is just another day,”
No offence, but since when do you speak for all of these people, Rick?
For the media to have just “move forward with their regularly scheduled programming with nary a mention” would obviously be disrespectful, if not just plain bizarre. Its not that the event was marked, its how its marked that I take issue with. I feel it’s been marked in a way that allows the event to be milked for all its worth so that the Bush cabal can justify his power grab. This flag-wrapped, blinkered coverage we’ve seen over the last year is therefore reduced to the level of mere propaganda, serving the agenda of the power-drunk warmongers who run the good ol’ US. The idea that the coverage is for these people is quite frankly laughable. From a global perspective it has likely turned more stomachs than jerked tears.
Bombing the hell out of Afghanistan as part of some vaguely defined open-ended “War on Terror” makes about as much sense to me as trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower. Yes, the perpetraters must be brought to justice, but at what cost? Reacting with more bombing is sure to fan the flames of hatred for the west, and inspire a whole new generation of terrorists who will come a-knockin on our doors one day. This sort of primitive response won’t do a thing to make the world safer from terrorism. The only people with anything to gain from this are the power-hungry hawks that keep their ol’ millitary-industrial complex pumped up on middle-east oil (read: the court-appointed bush dynasty and their cabal), so that they can churn out more fighter jets and cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammo, and keep on reaping the profits of war. Meanwhile, rich western yuppies can keep driving their SUVs, guzzling Starbucks, and basking in A/C comfort while five out of every six of us on Earth scrounges for drinkable water. That’s the bitter truth as I see it (and I generally consider myself an optimist). It’s this insane imbalance in the world, the one we like to be so willfully ignorant of, that will/is toppling the world into terror. I think the notion that “the bastards are jealous of our freedom” is at best a silly half-truth. If they’re jealous of anything, its of the (grossly wasteful and polluting) luxury we live in, and if they hate us its because of the greedy lengths we pretend not to go to, to maintain our wealth at their expense (raping the world, as I referred to it on Alex’s zonkboard).
So you’re absolutely right: yesterday is certainly not about me. It shouldn’t even have been only about the families of the WTC victims. To do any justice to 9.11 at all should have meant solemn acknowledgement for every victim of terror the world over, not just a nauseatingly woe-is-me, god bless america media blitz. But to do that would require the unpalatable act of facing up to all the terror and death that we in the west are either fully or partly responsible for, something I’m afraid most of us in our first-world fantaty land aren’t willing to find out about.
Indeed, what’s so wrong with peace, love and understanding?
You can’t make as much quick profit or control all the world’s resources from it, that’s what.
I think these issues are of dire importance, and a lot more debate needs to happen before we’ve even come close to addressing them properly (and you certainly won’t find any meaningful debate watching the ridiculously sensationally uncritical spin-machine known as CNN- read the Onion if you want to hear how it really is). Questioning and debate are just as important as remembrance on 9:11:02.
Thanks for reading.
Matt
Good post Matt.
As I suggested on my 9/11 piece, I do think a INTERNATIONAL HOLIDAY is required for all terror. That all countries can use to remember the innocent.
CNN is patronizing and I do agree with you that many Afghani’s were bombed. I lost a family member during the NATO bombs under Milosevic’s reign of terror. But you know what, in true typical fashion, Europe offered no viable military support option. The US was called in to break things up. And please do keep in mind that with the region, it was more to do with regional stability than anything else. If the conflict between Serbs and Albanians spread to Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria or Turkey, we’d have a greater conflict. So, in this case, it wasn’t oil. Sadly, the media is not reporting the problems about Albanians in Macedonia or Greece. They’re attempting to seize rights in the country as if it were there own — kind of the same situation as years back when Quebec wanted “extra rights”
The problem with your debate, even though you highlight some good points? You spend a large part of it debating the merits of justifying a “world view” but throughout your epic, you chose to slam the US at every point. They’re not perfect, but they aren’t terrorists. (Perhaps if we involve the evils deeds of the CIA and other agencies in the past). You don’t seem to realize that if the US were not to act as the world power, someone else would. The US did not choose to become the global cop — but clearly views IRAQ as a potential threat — the evidence needs to be provided. JUST REMEMBER that when Saddam saw his lost in the Gulf Conflict back in 1991, he lit up every Kuwaiti oil field, causing the largest environmental disaster in the region (forget the bombs dropped by the US and the 400,000 Iraq Guardsmen wiped out). The point is, that he used a scorched earth campaign because he was losing and he threw Scuds at Israel where they were not involved.
The Americans bombing Afghanistan (yes, there were unforunate friendlies…like Canada…but that sadly happens and I hate it…they even kill their own sometimes) was due to Al-Qaida hiding in caves — they were dropping bunker busters from B-52s to destroy them. Yes, there is oil in the country and that is one reason. But you know what? The car companies are moving to hydrogen and hybrid fuel sources, so it will be interesting to see what those on the ‘left’ or who are ‘anti-US’ will say then — the US is interested in global order or stability. I’ve read NSA documents on population growth concerns to US National Security. It’s part of a managed global economic system. Sadly, the world is currently operating on a zero-sum economic model of winners and losers and competitive advantage. Basic economic theories. But no one gave the US their place on a silver platter. They did it themselves. Prior to ww2, they weren’t even seen as a military power and Canada (!) had one of the largest militaries. The US will never lose its dominance like previous empires because of one thing — they’re forward thinking. They have strategic plans for their military, economy, society and space programs (including black projects) that move well into the 30-50 year range. While tribal powers (even the US could be considered one but it has to use military might to force people to comply and un-voted for global power) battle century-old conflicts, the US is well on its way to space and resource exploration.
I appreciate your emphasis on the highlight for other deaths through terror. I agree. But running plans into buildings is not the same thing as the US dropping bombs on Al-Qaida terror groups (with some innocents in the vicinity…in one instance, they almost got the current leader by accident …Karzai…that would have been a media frenzy). Yes, both end up killing people. But which provoked which. Exactly, what provoked 9/11? The US’ role in world politics, regional presence, CIA activities in foreign lands (the media is telling us the CIA has no one who can even speak Farzi or have humint in the region), or simply envy of success. Chretien echoed some of it. But that envy (if it is that) is not good enough to justify 9/11. Nor is blaming US support for Israel. Palestine is complex with Israeli occupation but a tragic teaching of Palestinian kids to act as human bombs. WHICH IS MORE TRIBAL? I don’t see other countries that endure conflict (IRA or Balkans) teaching their kids to act as human timebombs….it’s in the teaching and the guarantee of a better life…and women in the afterlife as promised to the 19 hijackers. How much is common sense and how much is fervour or hard core religion corrupted by people like Bin Laden? Yes, Bin boy was trained by the US against the Soviets (he was with the Mujahadeen) and yes the US helped Iraq against Iran in the conflict. But don’t confuse two world order paradigms. Back then, it was the cold war and Iran was more Soviet. As well, India was more Soviet-backed. The CIA and PKI (pakistani intelligence) go back a long way.
What most people miss as the real point is that, in the world of politics and global order, it is a big chess game. You define a utopian model for the world but sadly, this can never be achieved because world power’s never want to give in their place, and the other sides will just step in. The Europeans, in typical non-action fashion, are using bureaucratic instruments to get inspections that SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE and failed. The UN has failed because without the US military support, the UN has no teeth. It’s a joke. What? Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy etc. the military arm of the UN? complete joke. The UN has no teeth without US military.
And before we go slamming US military roles or presence, please be aware that without them, there’d be no option. Without the ability to go in with a large war apparatus to scare of terrorists and root them out, 9/11 would be an ominous warning and one that could not be stopped. Because the might of US military power serves as a constant reminder, it acts as a deterrent. Today’s world is fragmented and the rest of Europe and Russia had better realize that it isn’t about COLD WAR or CONTAINMENT POLICIES of the 60’s — this is a new kind of containment policy. The French and Russians are balking against Iraq for economic reasons — yes, the US might do the same. BUT…Saddam poses a real threat and Arab neighbours speak under their breath at their personal hatred for Saddam.
So, in the final analysis, our competing views (in some ways) will never meet. Your view is utopian where you think terror will stop with understanding. I disagree. Like every empire before the US, there are those that will always seek power to displace others. My view is that world order is a “managed affair” where the optimal result is the most acceptable route, for better or for worse…if this means, some US request against certain world leaders or certain actions to ensure basic global stability, it is better than a fragmented world. You might notice the increase in instability with the increasingly fragmented world order of many smaller nations — before Russia put nations under their wing via the Warsaw Pact while NATO served as the Northwestern alliance.
So yes, we should speak about ALL lives lost due to terrorism. We should have a universal holiday that serves as a checklist for progress on various levels — social, environmental, political. But to say that the US got some of it because of there action might be true. But it does not justify terroris acts. Israel does not initiate attacks against Palestinians. They “respond” to them. The US has done the same. In Vietnam, it might have been questions as an overt response but under old world order paradigms, it was containment policy and the domino theory…if Vietnam falls, the rest of SouthEast Asia falls to communism. Sure, looks stupid now…but did not then.
It’s more complicated than you make it out to be and all sides are at fault. If I chose between the US, Russia or China as a dominant power in global issues management…who do you think I’d trust? Remember, the US is largely still a democracy. It’s people are elected (ignore Florida!) through a process. If need be, it’s people will revolt (they had militia issues a few years back). There is an honestly stable check-and-balance system. What do you have in Iraq or places like Afghanistan (prior to now) under the Taliban…dictatorships. Don’t deny the videos. The taliban murdered women and Saddam gased kurds. Undeniable. The US has not done this in their own country, unless you include executions as part of the same principle.
You decide. I see one side that may be causing some world conflict but manages issues. The other side simply has reason to displace it due to corrupt teachings. Trust me, I plan on reading Koran to understand the issues. But so far, I see it as a global hatred against the US, for having their nose in issues, which the world eventually asks it to do…and the simple fact that the US is supporting Israel…
Sorry for the length. I won’t be adding further. All in all, individually good points, with different views.
Hey Alex,
Thanks for taking the time to engage me with your lengthy reply. I don’t think there’s a way around the whole length thing. We’ve opened a real hefty can of worms here ;-)
I’ve never been more politicized by world events than in the past year, nor have I ever spoken out with such vehemence as I do now (and I apologize if my little comment on your zonkboard the other day was inappropriately extreme). Quiet non-confrontationalist that I usually am, I was worried that I’d gotten carried away in my post. But on reflection I stand fully behind what I’ve said, and wish to clarify.
So if you will bear another (extremely) long and laboured post…
Let me begin by saying that I am not as naive as you may think. I know full well these issues are endlessly complicated and there are way more than 256 shades of grey. I speak my ideals of compassion instead of greed as a basis of foreign policy with full knowledge that human nature will likely prevent such policy remaining pure 9 times out of 10. I have no illusions about the complex chess game of world politics, and all of its vagaries and nuances. I just have different ideas on the nature of the game.
Most of us have our ideologies, and yours is fairly discernable in your reply. Like my ideals, in theory it sounds good. But It is very apparent to me that the reality of how they’re applied in the world is much different, and I don’t think it takes much digging beneath the official story to reveal glaring discrepancies. I feel that the global management system you advocate as our best available option, has in reality served as more of a front for the same old exploitation that always been going on. In word, it promises to eventually fix the imblance in the world, while in deed it has only served to widen the gap between the have and have-nots into a yawning chasm.
I have felt this gap very keenly. Backpacking In Morocco last November (just after 9/11), I felt this imbalance like a constant suction. I had to fortify myself against it. Compared to most of the people I encountered, I was, I realized, a spoiled rich westerner who had no idea just how insulated he was from the reality of that most of the world lives in. Like most tourists I was harassed more or less constantly, more so because I was travelling alone. Eventually, inevitably, I was followed and ganged up on in an alley and robbed of what amounted to a mere $150 CDN. A couple day’s pay to me. To those young men it was nearly equivalent to half a year’s wages. They were jubilant, grinning ear to ear. After they had what they wanted, they dropped their intimidation act and even apologized before they took off. These are desperate people. And there are billions of them.
I don’t want to moralize or preach, but despite all the feed-the-children ads on TV, most of us in the first world have no real concept of just how much of a potential powder-keg this gap represents. We are too busy getting drunk on our wealth.
I think we can all agree that this imbalance is dangerous and needs to be addressed, because one way or another the scales will tip. The population is out of control and the Earth cannot tolerate this abuse for much longer. We have choices about how we approach this pressing problem, and it is my contention that we have made far too many choices in the name of greed and status quo. We in the west are addicted to our toys, and aren’t willng to give them up. We are, I’m afraid, closer to the root of the problem than the desperate masses. It is we who have largely lost our compassion.
I am not saying that the western world is entirely to blame for the world’s problems. Certainly not. The third world is full of petty dictators like Saddam Hussein who rule by fear. What I’m saying is that we in the west, with power and might and that dwarfs the rest of the world, we have the power to address this imbalance. I think we are failing utterly to do so. Instead western powers have too often abused our privilige and exploited the instability in the world to our own advantage. Further, I don’t think we in the west are any less prone to petty dictators. History
shoud have taught us that lesson.
I will not compromise in my scathing condemnation of the US’ actions abroad, nor of any first world nations that front the giant corporate powerhouses of the world. The first world has become a corporate welfare state, and for the most part the powerful elite are unkown to us. I beleive Bush, that semi-literate drop-out from Texas is the puppet of the day.
ON THE USA
At best the US has performed its police actions selectively, and almost always when they’re economic interests are involved (the Balkans being one of few exceptions- let’s face it, we only went in there because these were white Europeans allegedly massacering each other- we didn’t bother with Rwanda). Unfortunately, the more typical scenario is one in which the actual welfare of innocent civilians has been blatantly disregarded, either through propping up whatever dictator will let the US do its business, or through methods of punishment that are completey barbaric and ineffective, such as the ten years of sanctions on Iraq which have caused the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis, largely children, and if anything only strengthened Saddam Hussein’s terrible grip on his country. I can’t see this as anything less than pure idiocy. When examining cases like this, the notion that the US wants to make the world safe for freedom and democracy to flourish becomes a laughable fraud that we have bought into for too long.
No country is more guilty of outright duplicity in world affairs than the US, a nation which I feel has deviated so far from its founding priciples that the founding fathers must be perpetually rolling in their graves. It is a country desperate for an enemy. Its economy thrives on war. The people who run the US (and its allies) made vast fortunes during the cold war, and without the cold war paradigm, the new enemy is Islam and all its alleged terrorist hordes. Under scrutiny, the terrorists threat has been blown way out of proportion. The capacity of nations like Iraq to harm the US is pitiful. The case for invading Iraq is without any foundation in evidence, and blown out of all proportion (much of Isreal on the other hand, feels it has everything to gain from such a war).
Saddam gassed his own citizens. Undeniable. What is also undeniable is that the US was his supporter and military advisor at the same time and knew exactly what he was up to. The Bush family had a nice cosey relationship with Mr. Hussein in those days. Profit. Weapons sales. Time and time again, the US, or moe specifically, those who reperesent the US to the rest of the world, have actively and secretly promoted instability and propped up despicable dictators in exchange for access to resources for western corporations (usually oil) and with the added bonus of more weapons sales. There is extensive documentation out there on this that I won’t recount here. Try Noam Chompsky’s Manufacturing Consent for starters.
One example is East Timor, a soveriegn nation that was invaded by Indonesia in the 70s. There was little international outcry (since news of this was suppressed in western media), and who was in there selling military equipment to Indonesia and advising the Indonesian military? The good old USA. TENS OF THOUSANDS of East Timorese civilians were massacred. This is just one example. Yes, this was during the cold war paradigm, but the same people were profiting then as are profitting now. All that’s different now is the facade.
With a record like that, are we really all that eager to have this superpower policing the world? Can we trust the US to be responsible and compassionate and accountable in such a venture? Don’t bet on it.
Now to reply to some of your points specifically:
“CNN is patronizing and I do agree with you that many Afghani’s were bombed.”
I think CNN goes way beyond being patronizing. I see CNN as nothing less than a news agency that has been bought up by big corporations who have completely stifled its editorial content to the point where it cannot be called journalism. It is a pure spin machine. You will almost never find anything critical of the activities of the big corporations who own it. I think this is an extremely dangerous thing. A media that does not criticize is not living up to its most fundamental obligation. So much for this primary check-and-balance. CNN is touted as a world news agency, and is seen all over the world (I even saw it in Morocco), but it represents the interests of only the narrowist minority and tries to pass them off as everybody’s interests. A pathetic propaganda wing, and the other major networks aren’t much better. The mainstream media in the US has been utterly enfeebled.
“The problem with your debate, even though you highlight some good points? You spend a large part of it debating the merits of justifying a “world view” but throughout your epic, you chose to slam the US at every point. They’re not perfect, but they aren’t terrorists. (Perhaps if we involve the evils deeds of the CIA and other agencies in the past).”
Yes, I slam the US at every point, and its allies, and I feel completely justified in doing so. I will continue to slam harder at what I see as blatant hypocrisy and unmitigated greed that we’ve allowed to run rampant.
JUST REMEMBER: the US has routinely bombed chemical plants and destroyed civilian infrastructure, including nuclear plants, in its various bombing campaigns. It routinely uses depleted uranium ammo, which has contaminated much of Kosovo and Iraq and sent cancer rates skyrocketing. Why don’t you go and tell all the civilians who they think the terrorists are. I think its time we take a good hard look at what we define as an “act of terrorism”. Terrorism is any act designed to strike without discrimination and strike terror into your enemy. If you ask me, the CIA and US military are some of the biggest terrorists going. Some of my friends who I visited in Belgrade during the NATO bombing have the post-traumatic stress disorders to go with their hate of the US.
“The Americans bombing Afghanistan (yes, there were unforunate friendlies…like Canada…but that sadly happens and I hate it…they even kill their own sometimes) was due to Al-Qaida hiding in caves — they were dropping bunker busters from B-52s to destroy them.”
To admit “that sadly happens”, is not enough my friend. Are you saying that 3000+ innocent Afghani citizens are a regrettable but necessary collateral damage? That’s as many as died in the WTC. When exactly does it become justified? As for trying to hit Al-Qaida hiding in caves, does this explain the accounts (found in media everywhere but the US) of civilian convoys being bombed along roads and in one case an entire village being levelled? I would argue that it be counted as a form or terrorism. At best its just plain callous. These sort of distance bombing actions are just plain cowardice. The US doesn’t have the stomach anymore to send in troops to do a proper job until after the smoke clears. It relies on indiscriminate bombing carried out by trigger-happy pilots, so that they or we don’t have to deal with the carnage up close. This is the kind of action that inspires young men to join terrorist training camps. To say “that sadly happens” is to fail to ponder the real rammifications of this particular bombing campaign.
“Yes, there is oil in the country and that is one reason.”
I’m not comfortable downplaying that reason, once acknowledged. Hamed Karzai, head of the (highly unstable) interim government set up with US help just happens to have one been on the payroll of an American oil company at one time (which one escapes me). The US has had detailed plans to take out the Taliban long before 9/11. All they needed was a good excuse.
“But you know what? The car companies are moving to hydrogen and hybrid fuel sources,”
Sure, but only when consumers and governments demand it, certainly not through any of their own initiatives. Oil companies have mostly sought to buy out and otherwise suppress such clean-energy initiatives to preserve the status quo.
“– the US is interested in global order or stability.”
Please. The US is only interested in ITS global order, and stability only when it suits it. When a stable situation is not in their economic interests, the have staged coups and propped up dictators which have led to much bloodshed (Pinochet in Chile for example). The US applauded the attempted coup of the democratically elected leader in Venezuela recently, who happened to be very critical of the US.
No, the only sort of global order appreciated by the big corporations and private interests who have the ear of the president (and who paid for his camaign) is one that benefits themselves.
“I’ve read NSA documents on population growth concerns to US National Security. It’s part of a managed global economic system. Sadly, the world is currently operating on a zero-sum economic model of winners and losers and competitive advantage. Basic economic theories.
US slammer that I am, I do admire the business savvy and free-enterprise system. I generally don’t hate American’s as poeple, but I think the ugly American has gotten a lot uglier lately. I just think those checks and balances you mentioned went out the window a long time ago. Window dressing.
“But no one gave the US their place on a silver platter. They did it themselves. Prior to ww2, they weren’t even seen as a military power and Canada (!) had one of the largest militaries.”
I’m not sure what you point is here. By your wording you seem to be advocating “might makes right”. The US became such a power because it was not domestically devasted by WWII like all the others. In that sense, it was handed to them by the whims of fate.
“The US will never lose its dominance like previous empires because of one thing — they’re forward thinking.
That’s a brave statement considering that it flies in the face of all of history. What’s changed now? Never say never. Are you saying Rome didn’t make long-term strategic plans back in the day when empire building took ten times longer than it does today? I think their current lustings will lead America into the dust like every empire that came before it. I don’t see much long-term hope for a nation that needs to justify such an enormous military and who’s social strategy is to imprison more of its population than any other nation on Earth (with no real effect on crime). America is bristling to fight threats from without, but just like Rome, empires collapse from within. The only thing I see as different this time around is that the stakes seem higher. I just hope they don’t take us all down with them.
“Chretien echoed some of it. But that envy (if it is that) is not good enough to justify 9/11. Nor is blaming US support for Israel. Palestine is complex with Israeli occupation but a tragic teaching of Palestinian kids to act as human bombs. WHICH IS MORE TRIBAL? I don’t see other countries that endure conflict (IRA or Balkans) teaching their kids to act as human timebombs….it’s in the teaching and the guarantee of a better life…and women in the afterlife as promised to the 19 hijackers. How much is common sense and how much is fervour or hard core religion corrupted by people like Bin Laden? Yes, Bin boy was trained by the US against the Soviets (he was with the Mujahadeen) and yes the US helped Iraq against Iran in the conflict. But don’t confuse two world order paradigms. Back then, it was the cold war and Iran was more Soviet. As well, India was more Soviet-backed. The CIA and PKI (pakistani intelligence) go back a long way.”
I’m not sure where you’re going with this part of your arguement. I think its important to point out that these teachings you speak of are the teachings of extremests who represent only a tiny minority of the Muslim world. A particularly nasty minority, to be sure, but a minority none the less. But these are the only muslims on the news these days. Just what is your point here? That we are justified in bombing the hell out them?
You are trying hard to separate the cold war paradigm from the current lone super-power paradigm, but I think you are ignoring an obvious continuity. While there are obvious differences, I’m quite adament that when it comes to the basic motivations of the those going to war, and real consequences for the lives of people, these differences are largely superficial. Do you really think the cold-war was only about some big battle to contain communism and spread democracy? Again, window-dressing. The things done and the profits made under the banners of these ideologies are ultimately the same. The most henious crimes of the US were done under the guise of fighting the reds. Same goes for the Soviets. The only reason capitalism won was because it was a more effective means of exploitation. Its all imperialism under different guises. We are living in the paradigm of a capitalist victory, and to continue justifiying the exploitation of the world’s resources, there must be a new enemy- a new guise for exploitation. Bush is visibly desperate to inflate Saddam and Bin Ladin into the biggest boogeymen.
“What most people miss as the real point is that, in the world of politics and global order, it is a big chess game.”
This seems obvious enough.
“The Europeans, in typical non-action fashion, are using bureaucratic instruments to get inspections that SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE and failed.”
It is a fact that the US’ own former chief weapons inspector (who’s name escapes me at the moment) has openly held the US government responsible for the failure of the inspections. The weapons inspectors eventually QUIT because they felt the US was making it as difficult as the Iraqis were by making unrealistic demands. (This is understandable if the US wanted to keep Saddam on the back-burner as a possible future boogey-man role, complete with alleged nukes.) This is a man who has served his country for decades and insists it is his patriotic duty to denounce the proposed attack on Iraq. Predictably, CNN did a hatchet job on this guy recently, denouncing him as unpatriotic.
“The UN has failed because without the US military support, the UN has no teeth. It’s a joke. What? Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy etc. the military arm of the UN? complete joke. The UN has no teeth without US military.”
No doubt the UN is ineffective, in part because of the nature of world-consensus building, and in part because it is hobbled by the US’ lack or respect for it. The US is only seeking to make the UN look weaker, giving it ultimatums to show up its weakness and showing up there to do PR. The US calls the shots now. I doubt Bush cares one wit what the UN does.
“And before we go slamming US military roles or presence, please be aware that without them, there’d be no option.”
Agreed, sort of. What I’m saying is that you can’t separate the US’ self-serving interests from it military might. This “option” comes with a whole tangle of strings attached.
“So, in the final analysis, our competing views (in some ways) will never meet. Your view is utopian where you think terror will stop with understanding. I disagree.”
That’s a drastic oversimplification of my view. What I’m saying in part is that terror coming out of the third world is in large part a backlash against exploitation and decades of dirty US/western foreign policy.
“Like every empire before the US, there are those that will always seek power to displace others. My view is that world order is a “managed affair” where the optimal result is the most acceptable route, for better or for worse…if this means, some US request against certain world leaders or certain actions to ensure basic global stability, it is better than a fragmented world.”
Acceptable route to whom? It is obvious that you champion a Global order. My point is that we’d best be aware of just what kind of global order we’re setting ourselves up with and how we’re achieving it. I think the methods that have been employed betray your ideals and to call it an “achievement” is something I can’t bring myself to do.
In my final analysis, the diffence we seem to have here comes down to the motives and methods of the managed global economy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to see it as largely benign and in the best interests of global stability and prosperity. What I’m saying is that it is a corrupt front for economic imperialism, and the interests of the big multinationals and their bottom lines is first, all else be damned. The benign facade is merely a false pretense so that those of us with a conscience in the first world can sleep at night. You don’t have to scratch too far under the surface of this facade to see the real motives here. Profit. Greed. The basic ideology of those who want to enact a New World Order is one of hollow materialism and growth at all costs. Go to any third world country and gather some opinions about what multinational corporations have done for them. You will hear about how the US has threatened to withdraw food aid to poor countries who will not accept GMO corn! If this is the kind of managed system you’re talking about, then I would not be sorry to see it fail miserably. The globalization we see is just the latest tool of exploitation.
This managed affair is managed by the rich for the rich. If you scrutinize the real results of this managed affair, it becomes obvious that this “optimal result” is not for the people it’s supposed to benefit. Most of the world’s poor are not the least bit better off for it. Listen to the voices of all those third world leaders at the Johannesburg summit. Just ask people in a country like Argentina how much they like the meddling of the global order.
“But to say that the US got some of it because of there action might be true. But it does not justify terroris acts.”
Please understand: I am not trying to make a case that any terrorist acts are “justified”. I’m talking about understanding the roots of such acts, defining such acts, and how best to prevent and deal with them. What I am saying is that we are in denial of the true roots of the issue. The facade will falls off when we truly address these root causes, and we as first world citizens cannot be comfortable with this truth. Yes there are extremists on both sides. I don’t think that Islamic extremists who train terrorists are any more destructive than the power hungry, dollar worshipping elite who have their greedy fingers all over US foreign policy. If anything, less so. These people have caused far more havoc and death than the Bin Laden crew could ever dream of.
“Israel does not initiate attacks against Palestinians. They “respond” to them. The US has done the same.”
If you beleive that, I’ve got some property in the gaza strip to sell you. Or maybe a condo in Kabul.
Though not specifically about Palestine, here’s an excerpt from an article by Raff Ellis, called “”The propaganda war: common myths held by the American public”:
“1. Israel has been attacked time and again by its enemies and is only defending itself.
In actuality, the vast majority of the time Israel has been the attacker. Certainly they claim provocation for these attacks but they have lied and spread disinformation in many cases. In 1956, Israel attacked Egypt, capturing the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip and was forced to withdraw by President Eisenhower.
In 1967 Israel launched its six-day war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, announcing it had been attacked. It used Egypt’s military maneuvers in the Sinai and the intent to blockade the Strait of Tiran as its cover for the incursion and only after the war was over did it admit it had launched a preemptive strike. If it were in the right, why did it feel it had to lie? If Egypt was indeed attacking Israel, no one bothered to ask why Egypt’s entire air force was destroyed on the ground. It has been documented (see former NSA operative James Bamford’s Body of Secrets, pp 139-239), that Israel had planned this war for a long time.
When Egypt went to war in the Sinai in 1973, attempting to regain the territory taken from it in 1967, it was in essence attacking its own land, not Israel’s.
In 1978 Israel invaded and occupied South Lebanon, which it held for 22 years. In 1982, they drove all the way to Beirut creating some 30,000 casualties in the process.
So, independent of all the “drive them into the sea” and “death to the Arabs” rhetoric, who is the principal aggressor here? Israel has been the attacker in almost all Middle East wars; at times has bombed Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and even the United States via its attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967. They tried to sink the Liberty with all hands because they feared that the spy ship had monitored communications wherein they lured Jordan and Syria into the 1967 war, and seen the war crimes they were committing in the Sinai. None of the above countries has bombed Israel, save several Scud missiles launched from Iraq during the Gulf War for which there were virtually no casualties.”
I’m not seeking in any way to justify suicide attacks on Isrealis, and I don’t deny that this is a sickening (and ineffective) means of solving anything. I am however pointing out that Isreal is very far from being a country that is just defending itself. This is essentially an occupation going back forty years, during which time Palestians have been second class citizens. By rights, as established in international law, Palestine is an occupied state with every right to fight for its freedom. Much of the official debate on this issue completely skirts around this basic fact, and unless it is addressed, we’ll see no end to this conflict.
“It’s more complicated than you make it out to be and all sides are at fault. If I chose between the US, Russia or China as a dominant power in global issues management…who do you think I’d trust? Remember, the US is largely still a democracy. It’s people are elected (ignore Florida!) through a process. If need be, it’s people will revolt (they had militia issues a few years back). There is an honestly stable check-and-balance system.”
Why should we “ignore” Florida. If “electioneering” happened there, do you think it doesn’t happen all over the US? Most Americans I’ve spoken to consider Bush to be an illigitimate court-appointed dictator. That’s not something they want to ignore, nor should they. But there is not much hope of a revolt. Most Americans (and many Canadians too) have been entertained into a blissful ignorance, fattened by McDonald’s, lulled into apathy, caught up in their stock portfolios, and brainwashed by CNN beyond any ability to think critically themselves. Bush has ratcheted back civil rights, taken sweeping new powers that the founders never dreamed of allowing a President, because they saught to prevent such corruption.
No my friend, what we have developing south of the border is an Orwellian nightmare.
“What do you have in Iraq or places like Afghanistan (prior to now) under the Taliban…dictatorships. Don’t deny the videos. The taliban murdered women and Saddam gased kurds. Undeniable. The US has not done this in their own country, unless you include executions as part of the same principle.”
Come on. Even if I were to beleive those poor doggy videos were actually found in some Afghan cave… I’m not even going to hazard a guess at how many poor doggies and bunny rabbits have been gassed or tortured alive by our very own pharmacuetical industry and military. Give me a break!
“You decide. I see one side that may be causing some world conflict but manages issues. The other side simply has reason to displace it due to corrupt teachings. Trust me, I plan on reading Koran to understand the issues. But so far, I see it as a global hatred against the US, for having their nose in issues, which the world eventually asks it to do…and the simple fact that the US is supporting Israel…”
No, I won’t decide and I don’t need to. I’m sorry, but I find your summary (if I may paraphrase- “A basically well meaning but sometimes clumsy US vs The Fundamentalist Muslim World and their “corrupt teachings”) to be dangerously naive. I say dangerous because I feel it ignores the basic roots of all this conflict, those being the vast inequity in the world between the rich and poor and the exploitation that keeps it that way. I doubt reading the Koran (despite being a worthy undertaking) will not give you much insight into the dangerous strain of fundamentalism on the rise in the Muslim world (and which doesn’t really resemble true Islam at all). Better to re-examine the sort of economic fundamentalism which having its way with the world.
Well, now its I who must apologize for the length!!
Thanks for reading, if you got this far!!
Matt
You’re absolutely right Matt. Our compassion has to be extended to the rest of the world, instead of reserving 99% of it for victims in our own western, first-world society. Sadly, I feel that if we had had more compassion and understanding with the rest of the world for the last 40 years, September 11, 2001 may not have happened.
Kip
An editorial by Osama El-Sherif:
[This article was first published in http://www.Arabia.com.]
One year ago an event of apocalyptical proportions shook the world. Catastrophe had struck the most powerful nation on earth, unleashing in its confusing, sultry and horrific wake bands of skewed visions of xenophobia and a concocted clash between civilizations. A wounded America set out to avenge itself against an ethereal enemy with a million faces.
The “America strikes back” indefinite campaign to get even, symbolized the new challenges that cripple our troubled world. A budding 21st century was suddenly hijacked by a global crisis that has taken the aura of a Shakespearean tragedy: of evil personified, of demagogue leaders and fanatic figures in medieval drab, of honor and dishonor, of offensive jingoism, of rebels fighting to their doom in remote mountain lairs, of warlords marching into crumbling towns atop rusty Soviet tanks and of thousands of peasants butchered in their sleep by laser-guided missiles made in North Carolina!
Is there a just war? Was there ever one? A year after the 11 September attacks on Washington and New York we are still living in the day after. What a long day it has been. We are still dazed by the initial shock of the strikes, but not only because of what we saw on that fateful day, but because of what we are yet to see. After the twin towers collapsed the United States struck back without hesitation. It conquered Afghanistan – one of the most backward countries on this planet – to flush out rebels and religious fanatics hiding in caves and mud houses. The toll seemed inconsequential, for the empire had struck back in this war of the galaxies. Our senses have become numbed by an overdose of media discharge so much so that the killing of Afghanis appeared almost unreal like the destruction of clones in a George Lucas movie.
Like so many riddles engulfing the 9/11 attacks, there are many questions about the war in Afghanistan that need answers. Who did what and why? What now and is it over yet? The mass graves of Kandahar and Tora Bora are yet to disclose the truth about what really happened.
A wounded lion may never rest easy. America is engaged in a perpetual war because it sees its enemy as a phoenix that rises from the ashes to haunt it again and again. Caught between the molars of this mammoth war machine are millions of people who are unable, or unwilling, to choose sides. As America prepares for another battle, we brace ourselves because like dispensable foot soldiers we find ourselves thrust into the eerie front lines of battle inches away from the gaping gates of perdition.
But in spite of the enigmatic nature of war, the innate fear and the brewing hatred, in essence nothing has really changed. The world today is as it has always been: governed by might and greed and the illusions of right vs. wrong. Every war is a prelude to another with the abstract casualty being the set of human values inscribed in holy books, constitutions, charters and accords. 9/11 marked the collapse of the universal twin tenets that all men yearn for: justice and liberty.
If we should have learned anything from the past year it is that evil is not a country or a people or a religion. It is a state of dementia that strikes the best of us, abroad and here at home. It is a condition of mass insanity that takes over producing hysteria and obsession. We are all guilty of practicing bigotry and embracing the illusions of right and wrong.
The trickle effect of the 9/11 syndrome-the confiscation of public liberties, the suppression of justice and the stigmatization of others-has spared no one. If governments are supposed to set an example to all of us, then think of the notoriety of such a role model. Our governments have succumbed willingly, almost eagerly, to unilateralism, eschewing consultation with citizenry, overseeing the manufacturing of waves of propaganda and disinformation and seizing every opportunity to encroach on public freedoms in the name of emergency in extraordinary times and national crisis.
9/11 should be a day for reflection, sympathy and solidarity with the victims. It is also a perfect time to ask the proverbial question: Why did this have to happen? But it is ironic that U.S. leaders are eagerly talking of waging another war leading to more deaths and destruction. The empire’s quest for revenge has become its true nature, its only nature.