oldschool CxC

Monday, August 29, 2005

Erik wrote: "This campaign to end the Age of Tyrants is one of the more liberal uses of the military in recent history, which is why it's interesting to see lefties contort themselves to find ways to oppose it without outright siding with the jihadists."

Wow. This viewpoint is really impressive. The idea that Bush will be the hero that ends the 'age of tyrants' sounds like jingoism to me. (Or Bushit, as the phrase goes.) It's like arguing that Reaganomics crushed the Russians (and ignoring the damage his outrageous deficit spending did to the economy -- although people paid that $$ back w/taxes under Clinton).

So, if Bush hates Tyrants, why is he gaily strolling around, holding the Saudi royalty's hands? Is it b/c of their incredible human rights records?

Why is the USA in Iraq? B/c of oil, bottom line. (To me, Bush is an impresive President b/c he can do all these amazing things WHILE ON VACATION. But then again, seems to me like he's been on vacation his whole life. ) American hawks were happy to have a chance to go in there and take another chunk of the Mid East under American control.

My favorite part of YOUR argument is saying that this is a 'liberal use of the military. I think you are using the word liberal incorrectly. Perhaps it'd be better to say, 'free and easy' use of military power. While I admit I'm not a 'liberal' (I'm a radical, in no way a moderate), using overpowering force against a country that has not taken any hostile action, declaring offensive war that is ruled illegal by 90% of the world, that violates the Geneva convention, and was pre-arranged by a conspiracy of American wealthy power conglomerates -- does not seem to me so 'liberal'.

Re: jihad -- maybe I should realize that a 'jihad' is so much worse than a 'crusade', but for some reason the rationale for that escapes me. Probably b/c much of my ancestors were killed by right-wing Christian religious zealots who's goals were spiritual/racial purity as well. Crusade, Jihad -- what's the damned difference? They're all horrible inhumane acts and should not be practiced in a time when people have enough education to know that violence is a last resort, not a first option.
I also believe the 'jihad' movement would have had less power if American foreign policy wasn't so aggressive/invasive (particularly re: Iraq/Iran), or if the USA had not given billions of dollars in money & arms to the Middle East.

Bush & Co want an enemy so they can take American public $$$ and put it into private hands via 'Defence spending' (aka military $). When the right wingers can get a war to happen, they profit on the privatization of tax $ (by taking a profit cut), by destroying millions of dollars of military hardware and replacing it at a profit. Along with lining their vaults with your tax money, they can institute repressive measures (Patriot Act, support of Minute Men, airport security, national ID cards, profiling, etc) by saying it helps security or the military efforts. Did you ever read '1984'? That world is almost our world!

What amazes me is that you not only defend these tactics, but what I see as criminal acts, you see as positive acts. Next thing you know, you'll be arguing to me that the 'trickle down' theory is great, that NAFTA is humane, or that non-violent criminals should get maximum jail sentences. What next?

4 Comments:

Blogger A. said...

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

1:11 AM  
Blogger REkz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:17 PM  
Blogger REkz said...

A's quote was from -- Ben Franklin

'We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.' -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

12:17 PM  
Blogger A. said...

"Only the dead have seen an end to war."

(recycled, not Plato, Santayana)

8:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home