|
|||||||||
Posted May 31, 2003
Regarding "The Folly That Is Europe" by Nebojsa Malic:
It's really pitiful how the only opposition to the Empire is infiltrated with badly disguised imperialists, who seek nothing but destruction of any alternative. If Europe is "socialist", that is the result of a collective desire of their people to create a just society. Something you've never seen in the United States, and something valued by every citizen not blinded by political follies like leftist, communist etc.
Nebojsa Malic replies:
How does one measure the 'collective desire' of a people? Through a referendum that must be repeated until the 'right' result is achieved, as in Ireland or Denmark? What about the people who elect the 'wrong' leaders, such as Joerg Heider, Pim Fortuyn or Jean-Marie Le Pen? I'm deriding Europe because it is glaringly obvious it is not the alternative to Empire, but an adjunct to Empire. I've said as much in the article. As for justice, how can there be any if there is a denial of freedom? By definition, State denies freedom while society promotes it, based as it is on voluntary interaction. What is taking place in both Europe and the US is the destruction of society and its replacement with State. This has already happened in the Balkans, and look how great things are there.
Nebojsa Malic hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote, "This is why one cannot trust Balkan governments when they proclaim a war on organized crime. They are organized crime."
Frédéric Bastiat's THE LAW, the quintessential classic on the tyranny of the State, describes exactly how the truly criminal nature of tyrannical state power operates whereby the utilitarian purposes of government and its necessary authority to administer the arm of the law, in other words, to protect citizens from criminals, becomes perverted to suit the needs of its own syndication of "legalised gangsters". Frédéric Bastiat lived two centuries ago (1801-1850) yet his keen insight and universal wisdom is so relevant today it is chilling. Isn't it about time we caught up with the lessons from history (again and again and again?) and cast off the chains of such brutal enslavement? Ignorance and apathy of the law is no excuse.
Regarding "'The Yanks Have Really Screwed Up in Iraq': Interview with Scott Taylor" by Christopher Deliso:
Many thanks. We were lied to before, during and after Iraq, Bosnia, Korea,World War I and II. The propaganda and lie machine are so powerful in mainstream media I don't bother with em at all except for raw info. A crash, a landing etc.
I am so thankful for the net. If we lose this info source we will have no source of truth.
Christopher Deliso replies:
Thanks for your support. I too believe the net is the key to the future of free speech and truth in journalism. It's readers like you that help prove this hypothesis.
Regarding "Mini-Nukes" by Mike Ewens:
Jonathan Stern: If you let Saddam go free. If you let him go free you in a few years would see Iraq with all the gulf oil. Oil means money. Saddam would use that money to build a world class military. That money would give him the ability to conquer the gulf and develop the ability to threaten the US.
Mike Ewens: Ummm, I believe that Saddam has had 30 years to build his "world class military" and nukes...and given how the war went, he failed miserably at both. Now, if you have the prescience that I don't, then can you tell me where the stock market will be in a year, whether Bush will be reelected or whether the gov't will spend more since Reagan and LBJ (wait, the latter already happened!).
And you seem to pull the rug from right under yourself: Saddam will "..develop the ability to threaten the US." Notice the future tense, which demonstrates that this war was fought against a current non-threat. Now, you may believe in preemption...well, there are some out-of-wedlock minorities that are walking around the city that may one day develop an anger at "the man"...better take 'em out while we have the chance.
JS: Saddam's goal was to conquer the Middle East, staying in power was not good enough for him. He does not care what the world thinks, All the gulf Oil and nuclear weapons would have made Iraq a world power.
ME: Really? You know him, spoke to him...he confided in you his desires? Well, I would argue that Saddam cared primarily about maintaining power over Iraqis (of course unjust). His outward goals, if they existed, would have come at the expense of maintaining his desired order over Iraqis. And without that, his power disappears. Therefore, your predictions are mere conjecture...NEVER a justification to start a war, tax me, kill innocents and increase the govt's scope!
JS: You allude to the cold war well the cold war was expensive and pinned the US down for 40 years why should we let it come to that? Only a fool waits for evil leader to become powerful.
ME: You're right, we should have just nuked the Soviets while we had the chance. Who needs the Earth anyway, nuclear war is so much faster! Basically, I would rather be "pinned down" than dead. Your question is also leading...perhaps letting Saddam be would have allowed his people to overthrow him, or perhaps he would have died of natural causes... Given this scenario, the actions you demand would be more immoral than any possible future.
JS: It would have been great if the allies got Hitler before he got powerful, why want for Iraq to become like Nazi Germany? With the oil of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait and the the entire gulf Iraq would become a world power.
ME: Once again, Saddam was in power for 30 years and never seemed to get anywhere near a Middle Eastern power, despite any lust he may have had. And you state "would become a world power." Well, Canada could legalize marijuana and become a leading exporter of it...perhaps bringing in more wealth than any amount of oil reserves could. Then they could march to America, pillage our villages and steal our women. Better nuke em! Hypotheticals, based on mainly shaky, dubious claims, should never be used for justifications of war.
JS: Now why should the US allow Iraq to become a world power? Why should the US allow Iraq by its illegal invasions to have great power over the US economy and policy?
ME: What if the rest of the world asked that same question: "Now why should the we <insert any nation> allow the US to become a world power?" See? I don't recall Republics – which American should be – ever being categorized as a "world power" that which necessarily demands hegemony over the rest of the world.
JS: Ignoring a problem never made the problem go away.
ME: You have been spending this whole email engaging in 'fear-mongering' and I am still not scared (perhaps more scared of people like you). It is better that we understand why dictators like Saddam would desire to bomb the crap out of us, rather than take it for granted and remain steadfast in our current foreign policy.
I say we conduct a little introspection and figure out why terrorists hate America, and not all the other free, capitalist countries of the world. After this, it becomes clear that our own actions may be facilitating the growth of hatred and violence in the world. And no, Mr. Stern, this does not justify the terrorists' actions, it merely seeks to understand and explain them, in the hopes of avoiding their consequences.
Regarding Dan Guenzel's letter posted May 23:
"...In my view, if we concede the authors' point that what is going on in Chechnya is mere brutal repression by a near-totalitarian regime we have to expect that we will be given an explanation by the authors as to why Russia is doing this. In other words, why Chechnya?"
There are several reasons “why Chechnya” was chosen by Russian mafia for creation a lawless zone. First of all, “fierce ”Chechnya seemed to be a convenient object to “play with” and to “make use of” its’ thirst for independence. On one hand, Chechnya wasn’t eligible under the old Soviet constitution to succeed, this right was granted to “Union” republics only, and Chechnya was “autonomous”. On the other hand, that time, in 1991, there were some juridical justifications for Chechnya’s self-determination and secession.
A). Chechens was a “formerly repressed people” so they were granted a right “to restore their statehood” under the law about “Reconciliation with Formerly Repressed People” (1991).
B). New Soviet constitution draft projected to abolish different levels of subjection of ethnic bodies and each body would have equal right for self-determination; due to “coup” in August 19 through 21 this new constitution never was adopted, instead, the USSR collapsed.
C). In Chechnya after the coup Communist system was completely destroyed, while in other CIS countries such system just was “remodeled”.
Besides these factors around “Chechnya’s independence” some ethnic Chechens were that time deeply engaged with the clue Russian Mafia figures in so-called “tycoons’ ” business. Moreover, during Soviet military presence in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe Soviet high-ranking military circles were key figures in huge black market of weapons, drugs, and oil. After Soviet withdrawal from these countries this “market” needed to be transferred anywhere.
Also don’t underestimate the socio-psychological trends of Russian majority, as well as military and former secret police structures, who feel the most “lost” the USSR as a superpower. Who was to be chosen as a scapegoat? Jews, as “usually”? Indeed, there were several “anti-Semitic” campaigns in Russia during 1988-1991, then a sharp wave of anti-Jewish trend was raised in 1998. However, such activities came under international consideration and were thoroughly monitored. Instead, non-known to the world Chechens seemed to be less protected. Finally, Chechnya became a climax of complicated conflicts in the former Soviet Caucasus.
"Why not, for example, any or all of the former Russian satellite states that have already gotten their independence? What is it about Chechnya that makes it more valuable to Russia than, say, Lithuania?"
There is very clear explanation. All independent countries are under protection of the international law. Why Chechnya is so thirsty of independence? Mainly because it desperately needs to be protected by the international law against another genocide (especially – after infamous deportation on Feb. 23, 1944). The very obvious example is Georgia. Russia attempted several times to influent this country, and even to attack it under a pretext of “fighting international terrorists in Pankissi Gorge”. But the US said: “No! Georgia is INDEPENDENT COUNTRY, so it is protected against aggression”. That’s the difference.
(But why the US conducted aggression on independent country of Iraq? It is more complicated issue. On one hand, Iraqi regime was rotten and very dangerous, by the way, it was created by FSU a as well as by the US. On the other hand, American military operation was a violation of the int’l law. I strongly opposed military intervention on Iraq because it might cause unpredictable consequences. Fortunately, the war was very short. Back to our subject, Georgia did not have any extraordinary case for justifying aggression on it. It is a typical post-Soviet country.)
"If the authors expect us to buy their argument that this is merely a case of the Russian bear crushing independence, then we need some facts."
Never I simplified like such. Besides “crushing independence” (that did not require any war, the issue might be settled through negotiating between Russian and Chechen leaders) the Russian “black business” and Mafia are making tremendous profits from exploitation this devastated and lawless zone. They are selling people who are being seized, beat, tortured, extorting ransoms from their relatives, not only for those who are still alive but even for those killed! They are selling weapons to Chechen fighters to make the war endless. They are extracting oil illegally… and so on, and so forth. See, for instance, The Dirty War.
"I don't believe they have provided them. Secondly, I think it may be a bit simplistic to write off Putin as just another bloodthirsty despot. There are complications in that view. It doesn't explain other quite interesting activities of the man. If I am tempted to treat Putin more charitably than the authors of the article did it is because there is some evidence, albeit not mountainous, that there is some good in the man."
What his deeds do you consider “charitable”?! Maybe, ruthless behavior towards sank submarine Kursk with 118 people? Or, maybe, his “brilliant operation” with which he “responded”, when a group of Chechens seized hostages at the Moscow theater (October 2002). Do you remember, how he “decisively” refused any attempt to negotiate with hostage-takers even about their desperate demand to stop the bloodbath in Chechnya, and “freed” hostages with unknown gas instead, that killed more than 130 innocent people?
By the way, relatives of the killed at this incident created here, in the US, special organization trying to open international investigation into this incident. Some evidences came to light now proving that this “terrorist act” was, at least, secretly “supported” by some FSB agents. See about this: Anna Politkovskaya, "Who Survived?" Novaya Gazeta, April 28 – May 4. Not to say Putin’s open cynicism about Chechens. All these and many other his deeds and words prove that he is ruthless and reluctant even to his fellow Russians, not to say toward “enemy”, e.g. Chechens. However, some of his former (or still acting?) colleagues from KGB as well as from the military also are influent on him, especially in Chechen issue, because they are making tremendous profits of this dirty war. Real fear of international responsibility for the war crimes as well as for the lawless zone business is another reason of his reluctance. Yeltsin was much more humane.
"If I am wrong please, by all means, correct me; I will welcome that. I want to have a realistic view of world events. But you need to get more facts in your article because as it stand snow it is mere opinion. After suffering through years of hysterical anti-Iraq lying propaganda from the US government and media, for the sole purpose of whipping up war fever, I think I am justified in asking for more substantial information than the article provided."
Of course you are justified. But, you know, nobody in the whole world do not consider Saddam as a good leader, and his regime to be suitable for the modern world Again, it was a sphere of influence of the FSU, and KGB left there too much, and former Soviets did provided Saddam with elements needed for creation of weapons of mass destruction. I have heard about these facts from the former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, who had several talk shows on the Russian American radio, revealing this information. I trust him because before that he gave many facts uncovering criminal deeds of this organization. I partly agree with you, most of the US propaganda against Iraq was primitive, aggressive, and not persuasive. They simply wanted to rise enmity towards Saddam, not to persuade us.
"If you want me to hate and fear Vladimir Putin, you'll need to show me some evidence."
I do not want “you to hate and fear” anyone including Vladimir Putin. I just want to tell the truth about his deadly policies in Chechnya, which are suicidal for Russian society and genocidal for Chechens. The most obvious evidence: he came to the power at the climax of the cruel second Chechen war, which from the very beginning turned to genocide. And now he does not want to undertake a tiny step toward “fighting side” to somehow compromise over this too bloody, too long, too exhaustive and senseless war.
Regarding "Annika and Peace" by Alan Bock:
"American culture's response to Annika Sorenstam's big adventure might suggest we are a long way away from even beginning to understand a sensible path to peace."
Looking under water, he is surprised to discover that everything is wet. Looking on TV, he is surprised to see that "the culture" is tribal.
It's a broadcast medium; if it wasn't aimed squarely at the think-alikes you couldn't sell targeted advertising.
~ Julian Morrison