Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure how you dismiss the help/meddling point. It's not like you can claim media-slant, since numerous world leaders are on video saying things to that effect. And that's not confined to the Arab nations either. We're getting internationally hammered for not doing something about Somalia. Why is that our problem? And if we did step in, look me in the eye and tell me there wouldn't be much wailing and resentment about the USA meddling in an African problem.

Who's hammering you internationally for not doing something about Somalia?

How am I pointing fingers? You brought up the whole "resource rape" issue in your story, and it's coming from real world complaints. I'm addressing your point and I'm being practical about it. Yeah, the camel comment might have been a bit over the top, but there's no mindless fingerpointing in the point raised.

That wasn't the point. I don't want to debate every single grievance individually; I know my attempt at "mirror history" was sketchy and flawed in many ways. I was trying to get across some kind of answer, in broad strokes, to your question about "which grievances would these be?" Some of the grievances are certainly less justified than others; in many, the countries and the people of those countries certainly bear their share of responsibility (if *you* feel frustrated and powerless about *your* system, just imagine how the average Syrian, Egyptian, or Saudi feels).

The point is that you *have* in a very real, very concrete way been making life worse for a lot of people, either through direct action -- bombing, shelling, occupying, invading, embargoing -- or indirect action, by propping up brutal, unpopular regimes friendly to you, or giving carte blanche to countries friendly to you to do whatever they like to their own or neighboring populations. *That* was the picture I was painting.

You're probably right about the futility of one of us "converting", but I don't know that the conversation is without value. After all, you're the one shouting "education" from the highest mountain and there's no way for that to happen without an exchange of ideas.

But the feeling I get is that I'm talking to a wall. If I try to get my case across diplomatically (OK, I haven't tried it much on this forum, but believe me I have elsewhere), you think I'm whispering sweet nothings and miss what I'm saying. If I try to get it across directly, you dismiss me as knee-jerk anti-American. If I try to get it across metaphorically, you dismiss it as fiction. If I try to get it across by reasoned argument based on well-grounded facts I source, you don't bother reading to the end, or dismiss me as a pseudo-intellectual windbag.

It. Is. Fucking. FRUSTRATING!

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm just pissed that Prime Junta hasn't let slide any more hints about his country of residence for my detective work on the subject. I feel it's very remiss of you, Prime J as it would provide important context for your arguments.(Falling for that one? No, huh...worth a try, anyway.)

It wasn't actually my intention to make my nationality a huge mystery; I just didn't want to answer it in the context of that particular discussion: in my experience, things tend to slide into a stupid "my country's better than you're country" kind of pissing contest. And now it's sort of been blown all out of proportion.

If you really wanted to know, though, it wouldn't be hard at all to track me down. I haven't tried the least bit to cover my tracks; the site admins will know my real name from my registration anyway. I've dropped more than enough hints about not only my country of residence but also my identity that a very small amount of Google-work could answer your questions.

Thing is, I think it's beside the point. I don't identify very closely with any country, despite my ethnicity and nationality; I grew up moving between them and have lived or spent extended periods of time in over a half-dozen, between Kathmandu and San Francisco. My wife and her family are even more multicultural than I am.

So I'd be quite happy to be considered the wandering goy. It's as good an identity as any.

 

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote:

..in my experience, things tend to slide into a stupid "my country's better than you're country" kind of pissing contest. And now it's sort of been blown all out of proportion.

Very true indeed--if you said, for instance, France, or most any Mid East nation, it would undoubtedly derail your arguments and reroute them through a perception of national prejudice, taking the discussion further off target, and if you said Britain, Tony Blair and the Royals would no doubt get drug into it. One could go on and on. Certainly more of a distraction than an aid to understanding. (btw, I only want to know because I can't. )

This could be the reason why so little is settled in the world by diplomacy, and so often by threat of thermonuclear fisticuffs or just plain war instead.

I understand how frustrating it is to argue these issues( since I've tried and made my head throb ) but human beings are seldom able to change a deeply rooted belief without the kind of existential proof that words seldom adequately provide. IOW, you can argue and elucidate with the silver tongue of reason til the cows come home, but until an actual experience comes along to back up your argument, no one's real ethos is in danger. At best, you can get people to think about what they're saying and examine what they believe. I think you've been successful in that here.

How successful the other side has been in making you do the same is questionable, but as I truly don't believe there's a winning side in discussions that focus on identifying civilians with military leadership or asking why the peons don't rise up and change the policies of the most powerful entrenched military/industrial complex in the world, the point is moot.

So I'd be quite happy to be considered the wandering goy. It's as good an identity as any.

Fair enough. And I hope you don't ever share any of the infinite travails and sufferings of the original Wandering Jew as portrayed by Eugene Sue (Le Juif Errant) which I read in translation many years ago. It's a tale guaranteed to indelibly etch horrors on the brain, with that somber talent which some French authors--Dumas and Hugo come to mind --have in abundance, to vividly portray man's unfailing inhumanity to man.

 

[Prime Junta]

As a postscript, I just ran across this piece today: [ http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/on-the-other-ha.html ]. It describes my frustration in debating this topic to a T.

(Also for the record, I think that it's at least as important to find practicable ways to cope with climate change than it is to find ways to slow it down and, preferably, stop it. I don't think hybrid cars are the answer either -- they're a Band-Aid when we need to lance the boil and take a course of antibiotics.)

 

[Prime Junta]

We're getting internationally hammered for not doing something about Somalia. Why is that our problem? And if we did step in, look me in the eye and tell me there wouldn't be much wailing and resentment about the USA meddling in an African problem.

Something just occurred to me, dte. You've brought up this argument at least twice before -- that "they" are clamoring for "you" to solve every one of the world's problems. The funny thing being, I haven't noticed any such clamor.

I think I just discovered who "they" are.

"They" are your conscience.

You feel that America *should* be living up to its self-image as the land of the free, the protector of the innocent, the liberator of the oppressed, and *should* be addressing all these problems. When she isn't/can't/won't, you resolve the cognitive dissonance by externalizing it -- inventing a "them" who simultaneously hate you and want you to solve their problems.

How does this sound? Could there be any truth to it?

 

[dteowner]

Since my tendencies are isolationist, I don't think my inner voice is speaking to me, PJ. A handful of quotes you might find supportive.
----------------------------------
This explains why three years (and counting) after pronouncing Darfur a genocide, Washington has failed to lead the world in ending the catastrophe.

It also explains why the genocide will be prolonged until caring Americans develop the tough attitude needed for change. Once developed, that tough attitude must be used to force the U.S. government to change its priorities and make ending genocide a greater concern than secret cooperation with Sudan's brutal regime.


Until last month, Nii Akuetteh was the Executive Director of Africa Action in Washington DC. He is an analyst for Foriegn Policy In Focus.
---------------------------------------
Galvanizing international financial support requires that the U.S. government take the leading role, both in giving its own money and in raising funds from others. Only the United States has the credibility and capability to provide such leadership. Without such effort, the necessary support will simply not be forthcoming. Arafat will be unable to improve Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians will be prompted to turn to the extremist groups, particularly Hamas, in part because these organizations will offer financial support, and in part because they will hold out the prospect of bringing about radical change. Hamas and Islamic Jihad will escalate terror and work with rogue states to generate Arab antagonism to Israel, thereby pressuring Arab and other governments to cut ties with Israel. This will weaken and isolate Israel and return it to the kind of pariah-state status it had before the Rabin administration held out real prospects for a successful peace process in 1992. This in turn creates more threats to Israel's security and places more strain on its economy, forcing Washington to carry more of the burden in the Middle East.
----------------------------------------------
The State Department says the Lebanese government has asked the United States for additional military aid amid the fighting between its forces and Islamic militants near the northern port city of Tripoli. U.S. security aid to Lebanon has increased sharply in recent years. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.
------------------------------------------------
Somalia is asking the U.S. government for help in building efficient police, military and intelligence organizations as it attempts to overcome years of strife and impoverishment.
The requests were contained in a three-page memo submitted to the State Department by Dahir Mirreh Jibreel, a U.S. representative of the Transition Federal Government in Somalia that took power recently after the ouster of radical Islamists by Ethiopian troops.
---------------------------------------------------
Perhaps that's a sampler? I just did a Yahoo search on "X requests american aid" and attempted to pull a reputable link out of the results.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm sure you'll get hits for just about any search string you'd like -- try "rejects American aid" for kicks. I'd also wager that most of those quotes are by Americans, from American media, or from interviews given to American media. Nicholas Kristof, for example, is a very vocal and widely disseminated proponent of active American aid in places like Darfur.

Second, those examples aren't about solving the world's problems from the kindness of your hearts.

Lebanon: You wanted Syria out of Lebanon, and gave a group of Lebanese politicians assurances that you'd support them if they acted to do that. They did. US aid to Lebanon is tied to that particular power play, not about "solving the world's problems." (Of course, you then screwed it up by leaving those very people hanging and supporting the Israeli attack last summer. That pretty much undermined any local support they had, and has pushed the country very close to civil war.)

Somalia: the so-called "Islamic Courts," essentially a loose organization of (not terribly hard-line) Islamist militias, was about to take over the country. For certain pretty obvious reasons, you didn't want this to happen. So you threw a big wad of dollars at the Somali government-in-exile (which consists essentially of common or garden non-ideological thugs). Again, you're not out to solve their problems -- you're supporting one gang of toughs against another.

Palestine... let's not go there. Please.

dte, you would do yourself a great favor by looking behind these headlines a bit. They're really not about "the world" begging for US hand-outs. They're about exercising American economic, political, and military power -- usually by supporting one group of people against another, for any of a number of reasons. Sure, you'll find plenty of people willing to be bought, and making a quite a good public show of it too -- but that's not "the world" demanding that you solve "the world's" problems.

Edit: however, thank you for the examples. I can see where you got your misconception -- if you have it to start with, it's easy to see how stories like this would reflexively reinforce it.

 

[dteowner]

BEIJING - North Korea agreed to provide a "complete and correct declaration" of its nuclear programs and will disable its facilities at its main reactor complex by Dec. 31 under an agreement reached by North Korea and five other countries released Wednesday.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei said as part of the agreement, the U.S. will take the lead in seeing that the facilities are disabled and will fund those initial activities.
---------------------------------
The USA has no direct interest in this--DPRK missles can't reach US territory. It's really the other 4 countries at the summit that have the most to gain from regional stability. So how come we get to lead and pay the bill?

 

[Prime Junta]

Actually, the Taepodong-2 may already be able to loft a nuclear warhead all the way to the US West Coast. If the DPRK continues their missile and atomic weapons research, it will certainly be able to do that by the time they have a practical, deployable warhead available. It may even be accurate enough to hit the right state most of the time.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2 ]

But that's sort of beside the point, as I entirely agree with you -- the US should get the hell out of East Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. That, in fact, is the entire, exact extent of my self-declared anti-Americanism.

Edit: however, I also feel that this whole DPRK question is a bit beside the point. You feel that the world beats you up if you do nothing, and the world beats you up if you do something; North Korea is an example of the US doing something and not getting beaten up over it. Whether the US (and the other countries) would be better off not doing it is another question.

 

[Prime Junta]

Can't help myself, gotta add just one more thing about the DPRK question: I believe the US is more worried about the proliferation issue than any direct North Korean attack. The DPRK is a known proliferator: the Pakistani bomb is based on DPRK technology.

IOW, the scenario worrying the US is that North Korea starts producing nukes, they sell one to some brown guy with a beard, and he sticks it in a shipping container and DHL's it to New York.

 

[dteowner]

It was the call by China that we would lead and bankroll that tweaked me the most. While I agree with you that the USA will gain something from this, it seems the Beijing is the biggest winner but has managed to get all the benefits without any responsibility nor investment. Now, I suppose you could chalk it up to Chinese brilliance, but it looks like yet another international screw job to me.

 

[Prime Junta]

It was the call by China that we would lead and bankroll that tweaked me the most. While I agree with you that the USA will gain something from this, it seems the Beijing is the biggest winner but has managed to get all the benefits without any responsibility nor investment. Now, I suppose you could chalk it up to Chinese brilliance, but it looks like yet another international screw job to me.

There are many ways of reading it. One is "If it bothers you, then you do something about it, we don't care." China doesn't have anything much to fear from a North Korean nuke; they're unlikely to drop one on Beijing or sell one to the Tibetans. So why would they do anything about the DPRK?

But, again, I think we're going off on a bit of a tangent, even if it could be an interesting one. I for one have no ready answers to what, if anything, should be done about North Korea, and who, if anyone, should be the one doing it.

 

[magerette]

Here's an interesting article from Slate on the departure of the last of the generals appointed by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Pace. I post it for this particular observation, which harks back to an earlier point Prime Junta and I were discussing, where he pointed out the need to make distinctions between terrorists and nations.

From Pace's farewell address(my bold):

..As for "where we need to be," Pace said, "I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war?' We have an enemy who declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives."

There it was—pure Rumsfeld, which is to say pure Bush, though a bit less eloquent. All criticism of the war is motivated by partisan venom; the war in Iraq is the global war on terror; Sept. 11, Bin Laden, the insurgents in Iraq—they're all fundamentally the same.

There, by the way, was also pure Pace. Woodward writes in State of Denial that when he asked the general if he had any doubts about the war in Iraq, Pace replied, "I have no doubts at all. None. Zero. … We did not do this. When we were sitting home minding our own business, we got attacked on 9/11."

Pace's successor, Adm. Michael Mullen, seems more capable of drawing distinctions. At Pace's farewell ceremony, the admiral said: "The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will one day end. We must be ready for who and what comes next." The same day, before the Senate armed services committee, he expressed concerns about the war in Iraq. "I worry," he said, "about the toll this pace of operations is taking on [our troops], our equipment, and on our ability to respond to other crises and contingencies."

Adm. Mullen was the officer who testified, at his confirmation hearing back in August, that the "surge" would have to end in mid-2008 because the surge troops' tours of duty would expire, and we simply had no more to replace them.

He, like Gates, seems to possess a finer-tuned—a more realistic—view of the world, its threats, and our available courses of action than Rumsfeld or Pace ever articulated. The question for the next 15 months is this: If pressures build to attack Iran, will Adm. Mullen give his unvarnished military advice to Secretary Gates, and will both of them present their conclusions to President Bush? Or will they sail with the winds and say what the masters want them to say? That's the ultimate test of whether anything has really changed, of whether Peter Pace might as well have stayed around.

 

[dteowner]

In Iraq, the Iraqis are killing each other with sectarian violence FAR faster than the US military could manage short of a flat earth policy. When bombs are strapped on little children who get pushed in the street and detonated (heard from the mother of a front line US soldier that saw it happen to a kid ~6 years old) and when markets and mosques get bombed with regularity, it gets much more difficult to find the innocents among the monsters.

 

[magerette]

No argument about the difficulty of knowing who is trying to kill who and why in the MidEast. Every newscast I see leaves me shaking my head and trying to imagine what people--like the ones utilizing children as you describe, dte--are thinking to be able to do these things to themselves and each other.

The article above on Pace leaving the war and the quoted remarks of Mullen I thought showed at least a bit of a changing of the guard in the military approach (which no one can truthfully say is working there)and also of how our military leaders look at Iraq and the area which might influence what they decide to do next. It may not be all that significant, but at least it shows that there is an emerging possibility for a change in policies.

 

[curiously undead]

its called war weariness, try to imagine curfews, lack of facilities, etc all. secterian violence wasn't a problem initially in iraq, much like here where most people (suckers) were in support of the war from the begining. many iraqi were joyful when the americans first came. but just like here where most people are against the war, over there where's its happening most people are scared, sick and don't have a lot of options. only an oppresive fool would say that given a similar scenario they too would do what ever it takes to protect whatever family they have left. its not just about the mentality of islam and the willingness to be a martyr, its about the will to not lay down an die that most people have. iran obviously isn't helping the situation but they sure haven't done nearly as much harm as foriegn troops and mercenaries. the warmongers really f'd up with this one, and the lack of an initial exit strategy is going to be remember as one of the worst mistakes in history. this isn't vietnam, and communism is a far less unifying belief than islam, and i really hope we leave the area sooner than later, while still managing to not leave a mess behind, because what the middle east needs is healing, and a chance to rebuild their culture. taking that away and supporting one regime to topple another "worse" one will only help further the warlord mentality and end up hurting more civilians. you can't prevent and prepare for war at the same time! give enough people "nothing left to lose" and you'll get exactly whatever selffulfing prophecy that can be concocted.

ah well, i guess i'll shut up now

 

[dteowner]

I'm weary of the mortgage company on my old house wanting to get paid and feeling quite powerless to improve my situation, but I'm not quite ready to strap a bunch of C-4 to one of the Twinkies and blow her up in CCO's parking lot. I'd love to hear how you really even attempt to justify that sort of thinking or lay it at "the warmongers' feet", CU.

 

[curiously undead]

even homeless people in america have it better than the average person in iraq. do you worry about being picked off by a sniper when your going to get food? hopefully dte, you or i will never have to come even close to being those peoples shoes. and again i'm not justifying (or ever will) anything that suicide bombers do, but most iraqis are not suicide bombers. and there's more murders and serial killers in america(by far) than there probably are children with bombs strapped to them in the middle east. its all that kind of sensationalism that is used to mask the suffering that innocent people endure.

dte, i know you and i aren't going to agree on certain things and i have no desire to prove a point or argue, but i'm going to jump into any conversation that in my opinion is damning of innocent people.

 

[dteowner]

No biggie, CU. I just have real heartburn with the propaganda machines that seek to paint Ahab al-Iraqi as the poor, innocent victim that would be planting flowers and singing Kumbaya if only the mean old Americans would get out. It's not GI Joe's fault that Ahab blew up his kid and that twisted mentality isn't going to disappear just because Joe goes home to Little Rock and that twisted mentality didn't magically appear the day Joe stepped foot in Baghdad. I imagine PJ could somehow come up with some logical sounding rationale where I personally strapped on the bomb belt, but for now I'm going to balance on my small sliver of moral high ground.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm weary of the mortgage company on my old house wanting to get paid and feeling quite powerless to improve my situation, but I'm not quite ready to strap a bunch of C-4 to one of the Twinkies and blow her up in CCO's parking lot. I'd love to hear how you really even attempt to justify that sort of thinking or lay it at "the warmongers' feet", CU.

@dteowner, do you have any idea how offensive that comparison is?

Having to take care of a mortgage is not the same thing as having to live in daily fear of your life, from thugs, militias, air strikes, trigger-happy mercenaries, or trigger-happy military convoys.

I would really like you to try, just for once, to see things from another point of view than yours. You refused point-blank when I tried to show to you how the world looks from the Arab POV. Would you just try it from a war zone POV?

Like, try imagining that you live in a Baghdad neighborhood. You've lost several friends and family members to truck bombs, stray (?) bullets, bombs, sectarian militias. You still have an Internet connection, though, and while browsing the Net, you come across some smug American with an avatar like a muppet Bin Laden comparing your situation to his piddling little mortgage.

For some people, that alone could be enough to get them to march straight to the Al Qaeda in Iraq recruiting office.