Turned Around

8 Comments

Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]

Mark 11.07.05 / 5am

Oh hell, it’s November and its been almost a year since me and my good friend Mike have had a meaningful conversation about polotics. So i’ll start it off.

I wonder if this book will say anything about how our Nobel Peace Prize winning former President funneled money and weapons to the Mujahedeen..You know the “freedom fighters” from Afghanistan that were trained under the watchful eye of Osama Bin Laden to defend principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.

Wait a minute…. “defend principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability” that sounds alot like an “imperial America that wages pre-emptive war against nations in an effort to subvert their perceived future threat.”

I think the bigger question now is..Since all that happened back in 1979 and 1980….How do we blame the current president for it? Hmmmm, thats a thinker.

What exactly was the Nobel Peace Prize for? Oh Yeah, “for decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development” Well it has been 20 + years since he gave money and weapons to the Islamic terrorists to fight the Soviet-Afghan war so thats probably long enough to qualify as “decades of untiring effort”.

Hey if you really want to know about untiring efforts for peace you should read Rev. Jesse’s book. Exactly what church is he a reverend of? Or here’s a better one, If you really want to read about “untiring effort to GET A PIECE” read the Clinton book. Ha, i be crakin’ myself up.
Michael 11.07.05 / 10am

Jeez, you’ve been holding that one in a while haven’t you? The line between influencing a foreign nation through economic sanctions and covert military support (training, secret troops, etc) versus military occupation may appear faint to you but it doesn’t to me. In one case you’re exercising influence and in the other you’re dictating the future of the nation. If, for a moment, we completely ignore the moral and cultural problems of trying to impose our system of government and values on a nation with a completely different history and ethnic and religious make up and just focus on the practicality of maintaining an empire today, you’ll see that not only is an Imperial America wrong it’s also just not a practical way to change the world.

Quick name an empire still in existence…time’s up. Have trouble? I bet you did ‘cause they’re all gone. The Byzantine, Roman, Russian, Mongolian, British empires have all faded away. See ya. Asta la vista baby. I’m out.

The trouble is once you push through the logistical moral and cultural problems and actually occupy another country it tends to be difficult to subvert an entire population indefinitely, no matter what the size of your military. After a while the citizens of the occupied nation tend to start getting pesky ideas of self-governance and then they start mounting annoying resistance to their occupation – I think they call that a rebellion or insurgency depending on what side you find yourself. At which point the citizens of the country doing the occupying tend to lose their sense of adventure as they have to bury more and more of their own to maintain the occupation. Then somebody in charge does the math and decides empire building really isn’t cost effective and is just generally a bad idea, so they cut bait and run.

Think George Washington et al vs. the British. Oh, the irony.

Now even though I’ve seen them all so many times I could recite the lines I still like watching the old Star Wars movies. I don’t know what it is about them but I just can’t get enough. But for whatever reason I just don’t have much patience when it comes to ignoring history and repeating the exact same mistakes made by pretty much every nation in history that was ever strong enough to pull it off. I know how it ends so it kind of kills the suspense for me.
Mark 11.08.05 / 5am

I can certainly understand, respect, and for the most part agree with your point of view. However, I think you surpress things in order to make the subject matter, in this case Jimmy Carter, seem more appealing.

Remeber when Carter said America would not stand idly by while Nicaragua tried to set forth on a different path than the rest of the world? Carter told them they had to retain the National Guard, which were Nicaragua’s former leader’s US-trained killers. The New Regime said no. So Carter ordered the CIA to bring up the officers running the Argentine army to train a force of Nicaraguan exiles in Honduras scheduled for terror missions across the border. They called them the contras.
(Sounds alot like what is going on now with US Troops training Iraqi troops to defend themselves. But we dont blame Carter for the world’s troubles.)

1979: The Carter Administration sent millions in aid and riot equipment to the Salvadoran military, dispatched US trainers and trained Salvadoran officers in Panama. (This sounds no different than Clinton suppling $800 million per year in weapons to Turky in 1997. But thats often overlooked)

I could go on and on. Now before you get all swoll up…my point here is not to come to where you work and knock the corn dog out of your hand, its to show that everyone of these people in power is just as corrupt as the next guy. But your willingness to sugar coat everything the Dems (yes i said it ‘DEMS’) have done in the past in order to apply some statement (which by the way, probably wasnt even written by the person saying it and is most likely being read off a cue card) to today’s way of life in order to take a jab at the current ideals of America is stunning.
Michael 11.08.05 / 10am

Thanks for the history review. I don’t think we disagree. As much as I think you’d like to use this as an opportunity to wrap yourself in the flag and color me as “one of them” by turning this into a rep/dem debate – that’s not what it is.

Clinton tried to assassinate Saddam. Regan sold arms to Iran (while they were holding American hostages) to fund the Contras. My point is that US Presidents are always trying to influence the world in order to improve things for Americans - which is exactly what they should be doing.

What I’m saying is that trying to assassinate Castro and invading Cuba, while they’re both attempts to change the political landscape in Cuba, are vastly different approaches. One approach may succeed while the other has been proven ineffective time and time again.

I’m not opposed to Republicans - what I’m opposed to are uninformed policy decisions that cost American lives and dollars, and trying to build and maintain an American Empire certainly qualifies as an uninformed policy decision. One that ignores history in favor of instant gratification and that Rambo feeling you get when you’ve got the military might to do it.
Mark 11.08.05 / 12pm

I know you are not opposed to Republicans. Assassinating Castro and invading Cuba are 2 very different things, but not if the purpose is to achieve the same end result.

Perhaps invading Cuba would sit wrong in the voter’s eyes, so lets give an order to kill him, and then when the Cuban citizens go into disarray, we can then move in and impose or will. I dont think that the intention is ever really “Lets do what is good for this small country.” It more like, “Let’s show them that they need us and why they should live like us.” Which im not sure is such a bad thing.

I guess what i really want to say is that this can happen on either side of the fence and it does, but in your initial post you said Carter “discusses his opposition to an imperial America”, I think Carter had the same idea all the other Presidents have, but he failed at it. So now he wants to try and backstep and seem like a good guy and hope everyone forgets the past in order to sell more books. What would sell better to the American public…a book about how Carter agrees with Bush and his current policy (Which to some degree he participating in the same type of activities.) Or a book that talks about how much he disagrees with the current administration and their idea of “Nasty” imperialism?
Michael 11.09.05 / 10am

I hear what you’re saying but assassinating a leader and overthrowing a government are not the same thing - even if the aim was the same. If you replace a government you’ve removed the citizen’s sense of self-government. The new government (even if it’s made up of hand picked citizens of the invaded country) is not going to be seen as legitimate and it will eventually fail. It might not fail today, but it will fail. In the mean time we (the invading country) are going to spend many lives and a lot of money trying, futilely, to get the citizens to accept the new government we’ve prepared for them. The whole process of nation building has been proven to not work so I see no point in pretending that it will. That’s the sentiment Carter was expressing and the one I was agreeing with.

I think most if not all presidents have blood on their hands - Carter’s no different. It isn’t an easy job and the decisions they have to make are usually not easy either. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask them to learn from past mistakes.

Imperial hubris.
Mark 11.11.05 / 6pm

En Vino Veritas
Michael 11.12.05 / 8am

Mmmm, vino.