you're basically quoting the administrations justifications for the war and going "yup sounds believable to me!" This has been discusses elsewhere in a bunch of different threads but "time to save the iraqis!" argument is just unbelieveably unbelievably naive.glad you find the subject matter amusing! anyway in what way shocking?
Did I say "I" personally felt guilty? If anything, my ancestors were more sinned against than sinning--my father is part Gypsy ffs. What are you talking about? Of course civilizations flourish on the heels of terrible deeds. Does this make them right?Do we need to assuage Western guilt? Do you feel personal guilt for the actions of your great great great etc grandfather or whatever? The world a few hundred years ago was a pretty brutal place (as perhaps it is today). Western colonial exploits were often barbaric but equally by modern standards so was the rule of many 'native' elites. Colonial rule was a highly differentiated procees across time and space and to say it was entirely malign or benign is simply wrong-headed. The history of humanity is one of conquer and assimilate, conquer and so on. Nothing in the evolution of mankind is pure; and the Western nations were engaging in nothing historically new when they excercised their new found power as widely as possible from the Sixteenth Century onwards. If Europe had not flourished then would the world have continued as it was? I think this is highly unlikely; if Europe had not aspired to dominance then some other region would - the Islamic world pushing on its borders is a good example.
Why do you raise this issue of 'Western' guilt? If like me, and the vast majority of people, you feel deeply uncomfortable with the poverty and suffering of people in many of the ex colonial territories, then surely your over-riding concern should be considering how these independent nations can be helped to prosper. If you feel the need to assuage your own guilt then, well, do it quietly somewhere private. The people of the developing world do not need our pity (or our guilt); what they may need is constructive assistance towards building a prosperous future. But that is for them - i.e. internally within the own dynamics of their society - to decide.
Ok so perhaps undeniable was a bit strong. However i believe that a strong moral case can be made for foreign intervention along humanitarian grounds. However on this basis it seems that you can't win. Everyone shouts foul when the West does not act i.e. in Rwanda and Sudan (although in the latter UN peacekeeping forces are due to be deployed in early 2008); and shouts foul when the 'West' does act like in the case of Iraq. Intervention will always be tarred with the brush of neo-colonialism but this denies the potential for effective action when necessary. In acting the intervening nations will always be making a subjective judgement about the nature of the situation. Are you opposed to intervention per se in all situations/contexts?FUCKING UNDENIABLE. Burden of proof is on you, good sir.
Mr. BoShambles, I highly recommend "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for a clearer picture of the reality of American involvement in "developing" the third world.Usury is not an exclusive 'Western' practice you know and can the loans really be considered high interest when much of the debt is cancelled anyway. And given huge quantities of the money is pocketed by self-serving elites perhaps we should stop giving this 'aid' anyway?
there is no doubt that the 'West' has supported brutal dicatorships in the past and continues to do so. But surely the systematic cutting of support to such regimes should be encouraged not poo-pood. And as for 'our drug trade' WTF are you talking about? Supply and demand mate. We didn't invent drugs nor the drugs trade. If you can make more from producing 'illicit' crops than standard ones then its a rational choice. Surely its the prohibitive laws that cause the problems?
Oh boo fucking hoo. Like "crying foul" ever affected a single foreign policy decision. The only people crying about not intervening are liberals who actually don't know shit and neoimperialists ready for the next bounty. Show me where other nations request our benign uranium-tipped assistance with their "humanitarian" problems. Did you see anybody throwing billions at Blackwater for tsunami relief?Everyone shouts foul when the West does not act i.e. in Rwanda and Sudan (although in the latter UN peacekeeping forces are due to be deployed in early 2008); and shouts foul when the 'West' does act like in the case of Iraq.
Without thinking too hard, yes. Such a waste of B2 bombers, I know.Are you opposed to intervention per se in all situations/contexts?
It has some weak points, but overall it's really astonishing what we did to (especially) South American countries over the past 20 years. Really scary stuff. I love the wikipedia page, every republican wingnut crawled out of the woodwork to post "controversy" points that are about whether so-and-so was really "hired" by this organization at the exact moment, etc. The typical bullshit.
...perhaps followed up with a screening of Costa-Gavras' "Etat de Siege" (State of Siege), as relevant today as it was in 1973.
That made me think of the whole ConocoPhillips oil vs indigenous peoples of Ecuador issue. Anybody following this?nomadologist said:What is it that guy says in Blood Diamonds? (Not my favorite film, but still)--"Let's pray they don't find oil here." That'll be the day the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congos, etc.
The key problem is that such countries as the Central African Republic, Sudan, the Darfur region, etc are abundant in valuable natural resources (eg uranium) and have a long history - still continuing - of violent colonial intervention, the principal source of the 'humanitarian tragedies'. In the case of central africa, the problem is largely the result of continuing French intervention.What is it that guy says in Blood Diamonds? (Not my favorite film, but still)--"Let's pray they don't find oil here." That'll be the day the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congos, etc.
Perkins' book has been quoted in a few thread here in the past, but this interview is a worthwhile summary:
I am ashamed to say that I have never read much about this--thanks for the info. Doesn't surprise me one bit. Wonder when we're going to go in and make sure no one else gets that uranium...or maybe help some of the Lost Boys or what have you.The key problem is that such countries as the Central African Republic, Sudan, the Darfur region, etc are abundant in valuable natural resources (eg uranium) and have a long history - still continuing - of violent colonial intervention, the principal source of the 'humanitarian tragedies'. In the case of central africa, the problem is largely the result of continuing French intervention.
Whoever suggested European colonialism was history?
The NSA tried to recruit my brother out of college, along with several of his friends. They did a background check so extensive that I wouldn't have been surprised if they tapped my damned cell phone. They made him do a lie-detector test and list every drug he'd ever done (they said it was better to be honest) with dates, times, and which state they were bought in.I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization;
A thought provoking post, Gavin.Here is your point that you always make: Yes, Gavin MAY BE right, but he is BLINDING himself to Tea's fair-n-balanced position-of-no-position. You don't even say that, actually. It WOULD BE idiotic IF I were to blind myself to your brilliant regurgitation of nonsequiter mainstream media platitudes "sectarian strife blah blah blah back to you Katie." The point you make every time. When in fact I know everything you said, I haven't blinded myself at all, it's just that it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER because IT SAYS NOTHING, IT MAKES NO POINT WHATSOEVER. Sort of like 98% of the banal crap you post here. Oh and then baselessly accuse me of CHEERING ON THE VIOLENCE for good measure, because you can't actually respond to what I ACTUALLY POSTED you pathetic piece of shit. And then when it gets too hot, you can "moderate" Vimothy to prove how fucking level-headed and fair-n-balanced you are. Thanks for making such wonderful thought-provoking commentary. You truly are an asset to the board.
Yes, of course I read it. And on the assumption that it's Iraqis who are responsible for the deaths from violent crime, which seems reasonable, then Iraqis are responsible for the majority of deaths in Iraq. You'll notice that this was my original claim, not that 'terrorists' per se were responsible for most deaths.DID YOU READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED? The U.S. has killed FOUR TIMES as many civilians as the terrorists have!