Cheney in the Dock?Follow

Hmmm... Actually, we're not really at the "top of the rest of the worlds sh[/b]it list". But that's another issue. As you say "perception is reality", and it goes both ways.

The reason several nations of the world dislike us, is because we've upset their apple-cart so to speak. Most of the western world was ok with funneling massive amounts of money into the hands of despotic ME rulers because those ironfisted rulers were the "easiest" way to maintain order and ensure that the oil they need continues to flow. And if that pissed off the citizens of those nations, and caused them to (rightly) come to hate the western world, and form into terrorist groups to attack us, well... that's just the cost of doing business.

The US is the first western nation to actually take action in the ME to correct the mistakes made over the last 70 years in that region. We're the first to try to give "the people" in that region a voice instead of just blithely supporting their opressive rulers in return for a steady oil supply. And *that's* why many of the EU nations are pissed at us. Yup. It's all about oil, but not in the way you think. The US gets very little of its oil from the ME. We import most of it from South America. The ME is mostly Europse mess, which they've refused to do anything about, and 9/11 told the US that we needed to finally do something. That's why they're pissed at us.


And the people? They're pissed because those governments have gone to great lengths to generate the perception that the US is doing this for some nefarious reasons. We're there to get oil. Um... We don't import oil from Iraq, and there's no agreement in the new government to grant the US *any* preferential future sales. We're there to just be bullies? How? By removing Saddam? One of the most hated rulers in the region? Hmm... Not really seeing that.


So yeah. You're right. Perception is reality. But how about you take a moment to look really hard at *who* is generating that perception? Who's policies have largely created terrorism in the middle east? Who benefits the most financially from keeping things the way they've been for the last 70 years? Answer those questions, and you'll come to the startling conclusion that much of that perception has been created whole cloth in an attempt to prevent the changes the US is proposing, and keep things going the way they have without concern about the people involved.


Are you seriously trying to argue that it's somehow morally "right" to maintain despotic rulers in the ME via oil purchase, but it's morally "wrong" to try to put democratic systems in place instead? Because while you might not have thought it through that far, that's ultimately what we're talking about here. There is no rational argument for the US's involvement in Iraq that involves any kind of financial benefit. It really is about ethics and trying to end the conditions that cause terrorism.

*cough* Because "we" (meaning the industrialized western world) put their despotic rulers in power in the first place?

It's not arrogance. We already did this. Maybe we should fix it?


You do realize that the massive money that flows into the hand of those rulers is what keep them in power, right? We're *already* supporting and maintaining opressive regimes in those countries. It's not a matter of "leaving them alone" on the one hand and "invading and changing their government" on the other.

It's more accurately "Forcing them to live under despotic rule", versus "giving the people a choice as to what sort of rule they live under". The first flaw in your thinking (and most people's) is that there's a condition here that does not involve interferrence in their systems of government. That's absolutely false. Every time we buy oil from the current rulers we are interferring in the natural progress of the people living in that region. Why do you think the Kurds were so utterly unable to revolt against Saddam 14 years ago? Could it be because as a result of oil revenue, he's got enough money to buy an army sufficient to keep him in power indefinately?


That's what you have to understand. We (western world again) must choose in which way we are to interferre. It's not a choice between interferring or not. The only way to not interferre at all would be to not buy *any* oil from that region. Do you honestly think that any of those current rulers would be in power if they didn't have that oil revenue to use to stay in power? If a "natural state" were present there, and had been present for the last 70+ years, it's potentially very likely that these nations would have developed democratic societies without any need for US involvement. Or maybe they'd have done something different. The point is that one way or another, the people living there would be happier and we wouldn't have terrorist groups springing up there. They'd know that whatever system of government they had existed as a result of purely internal forces. Right now, we can't say that about *any* of those governments. They are all the result of western interferrence, and have continued to be so for most of the last century.


That's why the people hate us. And the only way to change that in the long term is to give those people their own voice. You can't "impose democracy". That's a somewhat silly concept. Force people to make a choice? You *give* them a choice. What they do with it is their business. It could be good. It could be bad. But at least whatever happens will be the result of the choices made by the Iraqi people rather then something thrust on them as a result of 70+ years of western money flowing to a line of despotic rulers placed into power by those same western powers.


That's how we "win" here. Even if you can't see it.

Speak of the devil...

This is an email I got from my Congressman yesterday. It's kind of a long read, but apropos for the topic.

Elinda


Edit: Hahaha! Alla's swear filter has decided that the VP's name is a dirty word.
--------------------------------------------------
Message to Maine

"Legalized Torture: Not an American Value"
By
U.S. Representative Tom Allen
1st District of Maine


Vice President **** Cheney has been toiling behind the scenes to kill an amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to the Defense Department funding bill. The measure would explicitly outlaw "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody here or abroad. President Bush threatens to veto the entire bill unless the CIA is exempted from the provision. How can a nation that prides itself on its centuries of courage and sacrifice in defense of freedom even be having this debate? It is nothing short of shameful that in 2005 in America we have to debate the propriety of these practices of torture.

This is not a mere theoretical discourse. The other day, The Washington Post alleged that the CIA is running a secret network of prison camps in Eastern Europe and other countries where they are interrogating terror suspects. This Soviet-style gulag was hidden from the American people, from Congress, from the people of the host countries, and, of course, from the families and lawyers of the prisoners. These detainees have been "disappeared," to use the infamous term of South American dictatorships.

The Administration has "outsourced" interrogation of detainees to countries where legal restraints and a free press are non-existent; in sickening photographs that shocked the world, U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, goaded and inspired by U.S. intelligence agency overseers, were seen physically and sexually brutalizing inmates; several Afghan and Iraqi prisoners are known to have died at the hands of Americans; likewise, inmates at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been ill-treated. On November 7, the very day the President declared "we do not torture," the U.S. Army charged five Rangers with abusing detainees in Iraq. Not a single senior officer or civilian has been held accountable for any these abuses.

The Administration relies on a host of untested assumptions to justify its torture policy. First, they suggest, these suspects are guilty and therefore are entitled to no rights. Second, these detainees have such crucial knowledge about grievous threats to our security that we cannot afford to be humanitarian. Third, torture extracts useful intelligence.

Our values and the rule of law refute these assumptions. First, the closed, secretive system created for "terror suspects" allows no possibility of challenging the guilt of these people. Second, if they were all guilty or had valuable intelligence, why has the United States released hundreds of people from Abu Ghraib? An unpublished Army report last May concluded that many Iraqis were held in that prison merely for expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. Third, torture is not useful, much less moral, as expert after expert has argued. We should be listening to Senator John McCain-himself a POW victim of torture in Vietnam. He knows far better than Vice President Cheney or President Bush that torture is ineffective and unreliable, that even a brave man will say anything in the thick of unbearable torture.

Our military leaders want to abide by international standards; they believe that clear rules on interrogation would have prevented the Abu Ghraib disgrace; they know that torture is not only an unreliable and virtually useless intelligence tool, but provokes cruel mistreatment of our own men and women captured by our enemies.

Finally, as Senator McCain has said, "This is about who we are." Americans are appalled by what is being done in our name. The policies of this Administration greatly harm our credibility in the effort against terrorists. It is not enough to adopt laws that say we will not torture or that we not ship our detainees to places where the rule of law is blatantly ignored. Those laws are needed-and I have co-sponsored them-but we also must vigorously enforce basic human rights laws. If we continue to countenance torture and other inhuman practices by the CIA or anyone else under our control, we will be seen as no better than our enemies.

We also have a duty to find out why these abuses occurred, and hold responsible those who ordered or condoned these acts. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3003, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman, which would establish a bipartisan independent commission to investigate detainee abuses. The truth must be revealed so that our country's policies and practices reflect our core values.
--------------------------------------------



Edited, Sat Dec 3 13:07:41 2005 by Elinda

Psst. gbaji, this was a form letter. I'm not really on a first name email basis with the guy. If it will make you happy though I will, indeed, send him your questions. Make sure you hold your breath while awaiting a reply.