Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 22, 2004, at 3:09 AM, Frank T. Pohlmann wrote:

> >     Frank> My thoughts, exactly.
> >
> > Why are you saying this to the guy that Tom has
> > dissed for caring too
> > much about media distortion?  Pierce already knows
> > that.  Why do I get
> > the feeling that you are paying no attention to
> > anything that you
> > couldn't have written yourselves?
>
> :) Because the media distortion has become so bad that
> I am afraid any attempt to present the situation in
> nuanced terms is going to be drowned out. So I write
> in response to some of the stuff I am reading here to
> balance things out.

  Ah...the sweet feeling of vindication.

> > And what do you propose as a solution?  Censorship,
> > so that the media
> > only disseminates exactly what Bush wants them to?
>
> The reality is that very, very few journalists and
> fairly few bloggers attempt more balanced reporting. I
> read French and German, so I try to get other views
> and a more complete picture.

  The nice thing about blogging is that since they often
have little pretense of balance, I can factor that in.

 If a Bush supporter trashes Kerry over Berger putting
classified documents down his pants, I'll ignore it. If
a Kerry support wonders, that's more interesting.

 Though by far my favorite are foreign blogs.

 Here's an interesting Saudi Arabian one:

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

> > C'mon, guys, be part of the solution, not part of
> > the problem.  We
> > know what you think is the problem, and it would be
> > really nice if you
> > took the recording off "infinite loop".  What do you
> > suggest we do
> > about it, besides becoming copies of you?
>
> I noticed your sig and I understand your position. But
> I am, or rather was, actually equipped to part of the
> solution and back in the days when it would have been
> relevant, I was told in no uncertain terms that having
> expertise in the history of Islam is the most useless,
> irrelevant expertise one could possibly hope for. That
> was in 1991-1994.

 If you can digest that ivory tower link I sent you, it
would argue that it was the fault of "Studies" types. :-)

 They felt Islam wasn't "important".

> So, I am probably a bit too angry at times to make as
> much as sense as I should. Frankly, I have no idea to
> this day how to have any kind of impact on a very
> screwed-up situation. Even if I just tried to write on
> Muslims in the UK (or India, which is my main interest
> these days), or try to teach the history of Islam
> somewhere, it is very unlikely that it would get
> published or that I would get a job in it. People in
> the UK are way too scared and in India, well....long
> story.

 Start a weblog. I can give you an account on
opinionatedbastard.com if you like.

> > Cool.  The results are unquestionably nightmarish,
> > though it looks to
> > me that compared to the periods 1979-1990 and
> > 1990-2002, it's mostly
> > that a different set of people are having
> > nightmares.[1]  Others are
> > having more pleasant dreams.
>
> I am not so sure. Between 1990-2002, many got to
> dream. I have met some Republicans since who have
> nightmares, too.

 The problem with dreaming is that you're asleep.

> > Would you do me a favor and explain
> >
> > 1.  What is U.S. foreign policy?
> >
> > 2.  What do you propose as an alternative?
> >
> > 3.  What is the "foreign" policy of the EU?
>
> Hold it. We were talking about Iraq, right? Is there a
> point to this?

 Yes. Constructive criticism needs an alternative. It
wasn't the US alone that thought up the "let's play
Iran off against Iraq" strategy. You can try to put the
blame solely on us, but that dog won't hunt.

> > 4.  What are the foreign policies of the three big
> > member states
> >     (France, Germany, Britain)?
> >
> > 5.  How would 3 & 4 have to change in response to 2?
> >
> > 6.  What are the benefits and costs you expect from
> > these changes?
> >
> > This is just a test.  If this were a real
> > policy-planning session, you
> > would be required to be complete and if you missed
> > anything important
> > to any major interest group, you would be
> > disqualified from futher
> > participation.  ;-)
>
> Yes, perhaps; frankly, I would love the exercise, and
> if I ever get into this at my advanced age, I will
> make sure to drop you a note, but let me just say
> this:
>
> It seems that one of the major thrusts of US foreign
> policy to ensure that the US economy can function in
> its present form unchanged and for as long as possible
> by threatening and dominating any country with oil
> supplies worth mentioning. I know that a number of
> people on this list have argued that the US could have
> gotten secure oil supplies in other ways, but frankly,
> realities in the ME suggest that this is the US major
> interest.

  The goal of any democratic nations foreign policy is to
ensure the safety, well-being, and wealth of the populace. (For
non-democratic nations, substitute "leader" for populace.)

  A major thrust of US foreign policy in the ME is to
ensure that the _world_ economy is stable and ok. Non
US citizens are going to be skeptical of this, so let
me explain the rational self interest at stake here:

 Time and time again it has been proven to us, that
despite our best wishes to leave the world alone and
go our own way, that all nations of the world are too
interconnected for that to work. If the EU economy
suffers, so does ours. When Japan's economy suffered,
so did ours. While some people rail against globalization,
I just see it as the incredible shrinking world. I just bought
a new silk uniform for my Qi Gong class from China via Ebay...

 It goes both ways. When OPEC cut oil production to raise oil
prices, they shot themselves in the foot. While they made more
per barrel, they sold less barrels because of the recession they
triggered, and that caused shifts in worldwide buying habits that
hurt them to this day.

 So its not quite as simple as saying that the US wants to
ensure access to ME oil. We get the majority of our oil from
the Western Hemisphere, and with some adjustment, we could switch
a large chunk of our energy dependence to coal. We're the Saudi
Arabia of coal. However, if say, Saudi Arabia got nuked by Iran,
the worldwide economy would enter a huge recession. We'd come out
ahead at the end most likely, but probably at 80% of our current GDP,
compared to 50% for the rest of the world.

 So if you can accept that all the nations of the world
are becoming more interlinked, perhaps US foreign policy
can make a little more sense. We believe (belief is different then
truth, so feel free to disagree):

  1. Countries with democratic governments are more prosperous.
  2. The more prosperous the world is, the more money we make.
  3. Democratic governments are less dangerous then non-democratic ones.
  4. Democracy is best developed gradually by the populace.
  5. #4 is the ideal, but not always possible, especially in
     states with the "resource curse".

  Since 9/11:

  6. We must lower our tolerance of "risk" when it comes to
     rogue states, and WMD.
  7. We can't guarantee the safety of our citizens until all
     countries are democratic & stable.

   My personal beliefs:

  7. If americans have to bleed, it damn well better be to promote
     democracy, not greed.
  8. The short-term thinking that leads to "but he's OUR
     evil dictator" has to stop.
  9. Democracy is a good thing for all peoples. Its not a
     perfect form of government, just better then all the others.


> > Footnotes:
> > [1]  Not to mention that there have been plenty of
> > nightmares that the
> > U.S. had nothing to do with, and Europe did nothing
> > about them, either.
>
> Yes, indeed. But present US policy scares other
> countries away from doing anything whatsoever. I dont
> know about you, it is becoming ever more apparent to
> me that the UK doesnt have a foreign policy and
> medium-sized countries like Italy or Poland don't seem
> to have a positive foreign policy in a many fields...

 I think that the UK foreign policy overlaps in many
key points with US foreign policy. However, I think
the medium-size countries are starting to think about
having an EU foreign policy instead of having their own.

 This would mean that Sweden, et. al. would have to give
up their neutrality, which would be interesting.

 Pierce