Well, if my neighbor has tanks in my front yard, I'd have to conceed he has influence until I kick them out. South Vietnam was in the US sphere until we got kicked out of there, and we weren't even neighbors.
No, what *I* am saying is that until you establish a connection, it's not branching or rambling, it's a non sequitur; it literally "doesn't follow". I can't "ramble" from 1 to 3 unless I pass though 2 on the way there. Going directly from A to C isn't "branching", it's teleportation. :-)

Of course, if the topic is actually "random Yankee bashing", then, as I said, you don't really need a connection.

Nations always act in their own self-interests. But the rules have changed. In the old days, you'd use your military to conquest and then suck the trounced nation into your own. (In the really olden days, you'd put them to use as slaves, taking their land as a colony and taking their resources as your own.)

Lest we forget, the US/USSR "balance of power" was wrought partly on the backs of the estimated 20 million people murdered by Stalin so that he could maintain control.

Frankly I prefer the new rules, which say that if you are a dangerous tyrannical asshole, harboring other dangerous assholes and/or basically making trouble, you will be removed [if possible] to make way for your population's freedom and self-determination, and so that the resulting wealth generated by that freedom enriches both that nation and all who will trade with it.

The notion that it's done with all-volunteer armed forces and checked off via democratic means whilst a free media whines about the dangers and possible deaths is a huge bonus.

Of all the dangers in the world, the idea that a nation with huge power is running rampant freeing the peoples of the world is not high on the list.

All I can do at that one is shake my head. It's such a simplified, skewed version of reality. I mean, you don't even go into the Chileans who were killed by our puppet Pinochet because we thought Chile could become a Communist nation. But that's all in the past. What you're dealing with is the now, bringing up an argument for "regime change" that would appeal to the liberals, but that is not being used as a reason for this war; ignoring the specter of Bush's sudden sense of foresight-free empire-building.

Even though there is little talk of the argument you used, if a government imposes democracy on another people against their wishes, are they not as bad as what they're trying to stop?

And that "checked off by a democratic process" crap? Hardly. There are not the troops in the region or the proper conditions to attack Iraq at the present time. It was only pushed through now so that Democrats would have to approve it or miss losing votes to the misplaced patriotism that the Republicans thrive on these days. He knows that if this went through in December it would fail miserably. You wouldn't see any spectacles like the half-assed Gephardt buying votes with his yes vote.

And to MaggieL:
The only reason the SU was sending tanks into Afghanistan was to extend their influence into the country - which did not want them there. Saying they were inside the Soviet sphere would be like saying West Germany was.

Yes, how dare I remark on foreign affairs without checking off Chomsky's checklist of the terrible horrors of American foreign affairs since the French and Indian Wars. Why, the US should simply stop whatever it is doing, and prepare to be repeatedly anally violated by every other nation on the earth for its various and sundry inhumanities.


The [Canadian Iraqi ex-patriate] said his recent voyage to his family home in Basra was an eye-opener: There was no water, industrial buildings were collapsing from decay and Saddam's security services controlled every facet of life. "Everybody they are, believe me, against Saddam," the man said. "My family, I had a big family there, all of them are against Saddam.

"I said, 'Then why are you cheering him on the TV?' They said, 'Every day there is an event or something there, they knock door by door, take the people, the families, from houses to participate in this cheering, or election or whatever, by force.'

"If you are not going you are on the blacklist. If you are on the blacklist, your son or your daughter or your wife will disappear. Or you are going to lose your job. Iraq is the worst country in the Middle East."

If you want to pretend to care about these people, you're only fooling yourself.

Your original post skewed the Cold War to seem like it was all Stalin's fault. That's all I was trying to refer to when I brought up Pinochet; a fact that the rest of the world seems to realize but most Americans don't care to. This country does horrible things in the name of democracy; some can be justified, many cannot. Chomsky is generally a nut blinded by his own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that some of those aren't based on reality.

Fine, you give an example of what one ex-pat says of Iraq. But when has that been a talking point of this invasion? That was my point. This administration, which belittled the Clinton attempts at 'nation-building,' are at the practice here. But they don't even operate under the pretense of humanitarian assistance. A telling sign of their intentions is in the administration's occupation plans, which state that a US military official, installed as a temporary head of state in Iraq, would control the country's oil fields.

So how am I fooling myself?

I'm sure I don't understand.

How telling... that they would think of securing the nation's most precious asset? To think they would drain the first few gallons off the top to pay for the damn war, too? Why, it's almost as if Bush had taken to heart all that concern about the war being a bad idea because it would be expensive. It's almost as if he had shrugged off all that talk from the Democrats about how he should not go to war because he should "pay more attention to the economy instead".

The administration has noted many times that Saddam has brutalized his own people. It was noted again in Monday's speech, to try to make the case that Iraq is unique because of the nature of the regime. But you hear what you want to hear.

Well, Afghanistan wasnn't inside the Soviet blok until they were invaded, that's true. West Germany wasn't inside the SovBlok only because they *weren't* invaded. They weren't invaded because *our* tanks were there. Another one of those "sphere of influence" things.

Interesting article UT, though i've seen plenty of other things that come from more than one person that speak differently. Irrispective i'm not exactly tempted to move. On the other hand, that descritption does sound pretty brutal, which i belevie is why the US put him in power, becase he was very good and silencing communists, kinda like all those South and Central American regimes, quite a few african ones too.

I fail to see how IRaq is iether unique - or calls for action. When the CIA report says attacking Iraq would increase an otherwise minimal threat to a serious one, i'm tending to trust the CIA over someone how cannot pronounce nuclear.

It is useful to remember that the USSR esp Moscow began the process of deStalinization at his death. His burial place is testimony to that fact. The Russians are not proud of the Stalin era, but ironically and quite possibly, 'barbarossa' may have just succeeded if it was not for his ruthless demands on his troops and population. If 'barbarossa' had succeeded we would be in a very different world today.

I think the US should look at their own history and remember that the 'majority' are relative newcomers who brutally wiped out the indigenous population, very much like the highland clearances in Scotland on a much smaller scale.

socrates

Your defensive remarks are symptomatic of a nation which is becoming more and more isolated within the western nations. To critically examine US administration and it's policy is one thing as it affects one and all wherever you may be, but to conclude that it is a sweeping remark aimed at the US and it's population is plainly misinterpreted.

socrates

It's standard human behaviour - rapidly assume a defensive position when any of your beliefs or actions are questioned, and mount a counter-attack through passive-aggressive tactics.

Without actually demonstrating that the individual questioning something has actually committed any of the errors you are accusing him of, mount an argument (or series of) directed either at mocking his core beliefs, supposed generalizations, or unrelated issues he may or may not have. That way, you can distract from the actual focus of his criticism, put him on the defensive, and concentrate the discussion on his supposed shortcomings, rather than his criticism.

Problem solved.

Examples:

Criticism of Israel's policies -> accusations of anti-semitism, organized <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0928-03.htm">campaigns</a> to <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_7_23_02td.html">smear</a>, <a href="http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1039&CategoryId=2">discredit</a>, and <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021006-11854012.htm">ruin</a> those involved

Criticism of African-Americans (individual actions) -> accusations of racism, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1043">branding</a> those involved as racists forever, or if the criticism comes from <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/01/barbershop/">blacks</a>, brand them as traitors.

Criticism of any current US actions and policies -> <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2158&perpage=15&pagenumber=2">accusations</a> of anti-Americanism, career <a href="http://www.collegefreedom.org/report2002.htm">assassination</a>, ruin

Criticism of corporate behaviour -> accusations of anti-capitalism (but oh how this has changed in the face of bankruptcy), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html">Communist</a> ideology, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26554-2002Sep16.html">sabotage</a> of scientific facts/research and <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Borowski082902/borowski082902.html">removal</a> of associated works from school curriculums

<a href="http://censored.firehead.org:1984/scientology/www.entheta.net/entheta/go/philosop.html">Remember</a> L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology: Don't ever defend, always attack. Next time you're suddenly subjected to sweeping ad hominem attacks because you're (rightly or falsely) made any criticism of something people feel strongly about, you'll remember.

X.

PS: I know this is highly tangential, but these are some wonderful quotations:
"In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation of the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far been free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking federal protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of administration supporters on the religious right, according to government sources.

A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich."

Well, absent some sort of logical bridge from point A to point B, it <b>is</b> "a sweeping remark aimed at the US". So far the only connection between the two just seems to be "ain't it awful about the yanks?". If there's some other theme, do please point it out, otherwise you'll have to settle for being misinterpreted.

(Ever seen the character "Nathan Therm" on the old "Saturday Night Live" show? I dunno if that one ever escaped to overseas...<i>"Defensive? *I'm* not being defensive. *You're* the one who's being defensive here..."</i> :-) )

What paranoia again. To be sure, I only used the term "anti-Americanism" after watching Tony Blair do it repeatedly. Tell me, is *he* allowed?

For example, here:

On 1 October, Blair, addressing a conference of his Labour Party, criticized the anti-American sentiment, saying the United States and Europe have a strong alliance that is in the interest of both sides. "It is easy to be anti-American. There's a lot of it about. But remember when and where this alliance was forged: here, in Europe, in World War II, when Britain and America and every decent citizen in Europe joined forces to liberate Europe from the Nazi evil."

I think we will agree to disagree on this one and let it go. For me it is plain to see, for you it is clearly not.

socrates

Well, if you've set it forward plainly somewhere in this thread I've missed it. Are you afraid that the EU and the US will go to war over oil (<i>"...major fall out between the EU and US some point in the future over oil distribution..."</i>) and wistful that having the good old Soviets around would somehow prevent that (<i>"...the worst thing that could have happened to upset the equilibrium of the globe has been the demise of the USSR..."</i>)?

That strikes me as a wildly farfetched scenario on both counts...but I'm not trying to build a straw man here.

I'm sure there's a lot of nostalgia for the good old days when one could play the US and the Soviets off against each other for years on end; the threat of MAD was a small price to pay for *that* kind of fun. But I suppose all good things must come to an end.