freedom in the Mideast, Bush was right

[DogOnPorch]

"And Pomerania no longer exists!!!!"

Just watched the Westminster Dog Show.

I saw a Pomeranian who probably had a higher IQ than the originator of the quote above.

Pomerania and Prussia were both handed over to Poland at the end of WW2.

[Jack Weber]

We have similar ancestry (Stralsund/Volga Germany). Of course, I'm refering to Barbarossa and Herr Hitler. Sir B would have prefered a Nazi victory in WW2 which would have dealt with that wee missing Pomerania problem, eh?

Yes it would have...

Of course,my Mom's mom was a non practicing Jewess who married my Gramps during the War....

If Herr Schickelgruber had got his way,Gram's would have been incinerated,and therefore,...

No wonderfulness,that is Moi!!!!

What a Hobsian choice....

Hitlers Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union...

Yeesh...

[Jack Weber]

Pomerania and Prussia were both handed over to Poland at the end of WW2.

YJ's a bit of a historic dolt,is'nt he?

[WIP]

that is a simplistic, biased and extremely narrow interpretation of American Foreign policy.

Okay, show me the evidence!

Petroleum and the internal combustion engine are the very foundations of modern civilization and the bedrock of every economy on the planet and will remain so for the next decade or two.

And this is the definition of a simplistic, biased statement since you haven't mentioned the efforts by big oil companies to maintain their system of tax incentives, while denying any tax incentives for the development of alternative energy. I wrote a piece about this awhile ago....BP did a quick take on alternative energy in their "Beyond Petroleum" phase, and scrapped it to double down on tar sands and deep sea oil, because the numbers came in showing that they would never be able to set up a centralized, controllable system of wind or solar energy that would allow them to rake in the equivalent profits. If oil remains the "foundation" and "bedrock" of civilization, it will be because of deliberate manipulation and strategizing by these oil companies who have no interest in seeing the oil age end....climate change be damned!

So naturally the securing of sources becomes a rather important component of EVERY country's governing strategy and policy (both internally and externally).

Most of the oil that the U.S. spends their billions "securing" does not even flow to U.S. markets in the first place. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily set up to guarantee the smooth transport of oil for companies like Exxon, who didn't even pay one cent in corporate taxes to the IRS. U.S. Foreign Policy cannot be explained using the filters of what's good for its own national self-interests. It only makes sense in a world where large, multinational corporations have bought the political systems in the U.S. and most of the other nations in the World.

The huge military budget of the US has much more to do with the artifacts of WWII namely the ascension of the military/industrial complex to economic/political prominence and the cold war. Haven't you noticed that there seems to be a war every 15 years or so with more than one started by deceiving the country?

Bullshit! Why does the U.S. need 1000 bases scattered around the World, and feel the need to dominate every region in the World? It's all about empire, and it's not even an empire that is interested in serving its own national interests. It's an empire that is primarily dedicated to serving the plutocrats that own most of the World's wealth. If it was all about the Cold War, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex could have started winding down its costs and obligations after the end of the Cold War. Instead, they had to go out seeking a new enemy to justify military bases, proxy wars and continued spending on armaments....and I don't need to even mention the name of who the new enemy is that we were given when the so called "Clash Of Civilizations" began shortly after the Cold War ended.

And you should be reminded that in virtually every instance of US military presence on foreign soil, America paid for that presence in blood and treasure and remained at the request and desire of local governments.

Even if that was true....which it is not in most cases....why shouldn't modern wealthy nations with their own modern military forces, such as Germany, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, be expected to defend themselves. If there are U.S. military bases that are wanted in the colonies, it is at the behest of despots and dictators that are financially supported by the U.S....and popular uprisings are trying to dispose of today. You think the people of Bahrain want that U.S. naval base there? Why not allow democracy and put it up for a vote? We know what the princes and king want, what about the rest of the people; I'd be interested to see how they would vote if that base was put up for referendum!

[bloodyminded]

If there are U.S. military bases that are wanted in the colonies, it is at the behest of despots and dictators that are financially supported by the U.S....and popular uprisings are trying to dispose of today. You think the people of Bahrain want that U.S. naval base there? Why not allow democracy and put it up for a vote? We know what the princes and king want, what about the rest of the people; I'd be interested to see how they would vote if that base was put up for referendum!

Oh, that's interesting.

During the wikileaks debates recently, we saw exactly this mode of thinking--imperial thinking at its core--exposed quite profoundly:

"Look!" the Defenders of the Faith, up to and including the U.S. Secretary of State, were proclaiming. "See? Even the Arabs think Iran is a threat and should be dealt with!"

But of course, by "Arabs" they meant "Arab despots dependent on Imperial largesse."

When the people were asked (a namby-pamby radical approach to understanding things, I know) they not only did not support an attack on Iran...they deemed the United States of America to be a primary threat.

Unfortuantely, they don't understand the moral imperatives in the same way as do their wise and sensible tyrants.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

Oh, that's interesting.

During the wikileaks debates recently, we saw exactly this mode of thinking--imperial thinking at its core--exposed quite profoundly:

"Look!" the Defenders of the Faith, up to and including the U.S. Secretary of State, were proclaiming. "See? Even the Arabs think Iran is a threat and should be dealt with!"

But of course, by "Arabs" they meant "Arab despots dependent on Imperial largesse."

When the people were asked (a namby-pamby radical approach to understanding things, I know) they not only did not support an attack on Iran...they deemed the United States of America to be a primary threat.

Unfortuantely, they don't understand the moral imperatives in the same way as do their wise and sensible tyrants.

They also missed the ethnic Arab/Persian rivalry thingy...

And the sectarian Sunni/Shi'Ite thingy...

[WIP]

Oh, that's interesting.

During the wikileaks debates recently, we saw exactly this mode of thinking--imperial thinking at its core--exposed quite profoundly:

"Look!" the Defenders of the Faith, up to and including the U.S. Secretary of State, were proclaiming. "See? Even the Arabs think Iran is a threat and should be dealt with!"

But of course, by "Arabs" they meant "Arab despots dependent on Imperial largesse."

When the people were asked (a namby-pamby radical approach to understanding things, I know) they not only did not support an attack on Iran...they deemed the United States of America to be a primary threat.

Unfortuantely, they don't understand the moral imperatives in the same way as do their wise and sensible tyrants.

There is also another aspect to U.S. supported Arab regimes that is rarely mentioned. The U.S. (and Israel also apparently) seem to turn a blind eye to the constant anti-Jewish messaging that is promoted right on Mubarak's state TV network. Both governments have apparently tolerated Egyptian TV running programs like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as long as the Government backs up U.S. and Israeli policy. But, the net result is that if present day Egyptians hate Jews, along with hating Israel, some of it has come right from their own allies, and not groups they declare to be the enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Jonsa]

Okay, show me the evidence!

And this is the definition of a simplistic, biased statement since you haven't mentioned the efforts by big oil companies to maintain their system of tax incentives, while denying any tax incentives for the development of alternative energy. I wrote a piece about this awhile ago....BP did a quick take on alternative energy in their "Beyond Petroleum" phase, and scrapped it to double down on tar sands and deep sea oil, because the numbers came in showing that they would never be able to set up a centralized, controllable system of wind or solar energy that would allow them to rake in the equivalent profits. If oil remains the "foundation" and "bedrock" of civilization, it will be because of deliberate manipulation and strategizing by these oil companies who have no interest in seeing the oil age end....climate change be damned!

Your point being? Oil remains the foundation of this civilization and will continue to do so until viable portable alternative sources can be economically manufactured, distributed and maintained.

Your whining about the maneouvering of oil companies is irrelevant to the fact. And surprise surprise the oil companies, the trust fund states that pump billions a year outta the ground, the investement bankers, stock brokers and all those involved in the infrastructure, don't want it to end. Wow, who could have imagined such a diabolical conspiracy?

Most of the oil that the U.S. spends their billions "securing" does not even flow to U.S. markets in the first place. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily set up to guarantee the smooth transport of oil for companies like Exxon, who didn't even pay one cent in corporate taxes to the IRS. U.S. Foreign Policy cannot be explained using the filters of what's good for its own national self-interests. It only makes sense in a world where large, multinational corporations have bought the political systems in the U.S. and most of the other nations in the World.

Not really a response to what I wrote, but I'll respond directly to you.

That damn oil market. The oil pumped from american soil might not even go to america and in many cases americans don't get a red cent for it. I'd get really pissed at all those "free market" type people who think that deregulation and capitalism make everything better.

Us foreign policy doesn't necessarily make sense, but it is focused on national interests and security. That there might be alignement in some of those interests with multinational coporations is to be expected and reasonable. I suppose thinking that foreign policy is all about multitional profit generation/retention, is a legitimate position. It'd be a simplistic and inadequate explanation of the realpolitik, but probably makes you feel better.

Bullshit! Why does the U.S. need 1000 bases scattered around the World, and feel the need to dominate every region in the World? It's all about empire, and it's not even an empire that is interested in serving its own national interests. It's an empire that is primarily dedicated to serving the plutocrats that own most of the World's wealth. If it was all about the Cold War, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex could have started winding down its costs and obligations after the end of the Cold War. Instead, they had to go out seeking a new enemy to justify military bases, proxy wars and continued spending on armaments....and I don't need to even mention the name of who the new enemy is that we were given when the so called "Clash Of Civilizations" began shortly after the Cold War ended.

So you think that the military/industrial complex after attaining a primary position in the global economy would start cutting back on its power voluntarily? You think that most of those foreign bases are not artifacts of WW2,Korea or the cold war? Once there, why leave when you can project your power anywhere in the world? Thats US foreign policy. What is so hard to understand?

Even if that was true....which it is not in most cases....why shouldn't modern wealthy nations with their own modern military forces, such as Germany, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, be expected to defend themselves. If there are U.S. military bases that are wanted in the colonies, it is at the behest of despots and dictators that are financially supported by the U.S....and popular uprisings are trying to dispose of today. You think the people of Bahrain want that U.S. naval base there? Why not allow democracy and put it up for a vote? We know what the princes and king want, what about the rest of the people; I'd be interested to see how they would vote if that base was put up for referendum!

Most cases its not true? Oh really, like which ones weren't bought and paid for in US blood and treasure? don't claim something isn't true when you obviously have absolutely no idea.

Name one country where the US maintains a base that the host country has told them to get out? Just one will do.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Jonsa

[bush_cheney2004]

Your point being? Oil remains the foundation of this civilization and will continue to do so until viable portable alternative sources can be economically manufactured, distributed and maintained.

This, Sir, is probably the most important reality check that you could have provided, as it is relevant to many other issues discussed in this forum. With world consumption at about 82,000,000 bpd, what part of the energy density equation do they not understand?

[GWiz]

I agree. The superpower has its "allies" and dependent nations that consider co-operation in some operations of "questionable" return a small price to pay for the perceived benefits of the relationship.

Nevertheless, their contributions of blood and treasure cannot and for the most part are not ignored.

Karzai and his brother are corrupt, no question. You point out a recurring weakness in American policy, the necessity to deal with local powers-that-be. Expedience and percieved control trumps ethics.

There are also the cultural aspects of foreign lands that seem to get ignored or misinterpreted time and time again.

Agreed. Its a bit of a bitch when they just won't do what you want them to do, eh?

Yup...

[GWiz]

There is also another aspect to U.S. supported Arab regimes that is rarely mentioned. The U.S. (and Israel also apparently) seem to turn a blind eye to the constant anti-Jewish messaging that is promoted right on Mubarak's state TV network. Both governments have apparently tolerated Egyptian TV running programs like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as long as the Government backs up U.S. and Israeli policy. But, the net result is that if present day Egyptians hate Jews, along with hating Israel, some of it has come right from their own allies, and not groups they declare to be the enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is true...

[GWiz]

Name one country where the US maintains a base that the host country has told them to get out? Just one will do.

The Philippines...

[Jonsa]

The Philippines...

Wrong.

There are no US military bases in the philippines, in accordance with the philippines governments refusal to extend the 1947 and rejection of the "friendship,peace and co-operation" treaty that was to replace it 1991.

Try again.

[Jonsa]

There is also another aspect to U.S. supported Arab regimes that is rarely mentioned. The U.S. (and Israel also apparently) seem to turn a blind eye to the constant anti-Jewish messaging that is promoted right on Mubarak's state TV network. Both governments have apparently tolerated Egyptian TV running programs like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as long as the Government backs up U.S. and Israeli policy. But, the net result is that if present day Egyptians hate Jews, along with hating Israel, some of it has come right from their own allies, and not groups they declare to be the enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't know what you mean by "tolerate" Egyptian tv running the protocols and the blood libel crap. IIRC, there was quite the diplomatic flap over it, but in the end nothing was done, because nothing could be done other than jumping up and down and having a bit of a tantrum.

Perhaps you are unaware of the cultural attitude towards jews in muslim lands for the past 1500 years or so (with a brief respite from c.1490 to c.1550 Ottoman empire). There has been a persistent "jews are our enemy" meme running thru muslim cultures since the time of the prophet. It sure as hell wasn't all peace and tolerance and love like some would have us believe.

The egyptian government has never really been an "ally" of Israel. They signed the treaty to get Sinai back, said no thanks to gaza and tepidly and tacitly agreed that sharm al sheik was a great place to vacation. they penned in the gazans out of their own self interest. They don't like palestinians as a rule and remember that they sparked a couple of civil wars in other countries and for the most part are dominated by Islamists.

[WIP]

Your point being? Oil remains the foundation of this civilization and will continue to do so until viable portable alternative sources can be economically manufactured, distributed and maintained.

Which is not going to last anyway! Oil...and coal, and methane gas, are forms of stored sunlight....and that is the key problem that rapacious pro-growth capitalists can't seem to get through their heads! It took millions of years to put that stored sunlight into the Earth, that the oil companies have sucked out in the last 150 years....and there's not much left! Why do you think there is so much development of the tar sands in Alberta? The tar sands were discovered long before the first oil deposits out there, but nobody wanted it. In fact, for years the only commercial development of tar sands was to use it for paving roads....and things would have stayed that way except that the easy to get oil is almost all gone now, at a time when oil consumption is still growing.

And of course it's why oil companies are trying to sink wells through three miles of rock off the coast of Brazil right now....and the engineers still don't know if there exploratory wells will actually be capable of reaching the continental shelf deposits down there. As they drill deeper and deeper, the temperatures and pressures increase, along with the risks of blowouts....as observed in the Gulf of Mexico. I think an examination of BP's conduct regarding their attempts to put cost-control ahead of safety in the Gulf, illustrate that these great captains of industry are also single-minded, greedy psychopaths who will risk anything...including destroying the planet, in their quest for more wealth and more power.

We've seen this attitude with those Wall Street wizards that turned commercial banking into a ponzi scheme, and we see it with actions of the oil companies right now, who disregard the risks that climate changes so far may have already set up positive feedback effects, and have run an expensive propaganda and lobbying campaign to prevent any public action to end the Oil Age before they've sucked out the last drop.

Us foreign policy doesn't necessarily make sense, but it is focused on national interests and security. That there might be alignement in some of those interests with multinational coporations is to be expected and reasonable. I suppose thinking that foreign policy is all about multitional profit generation/retention, is a legitimate position. It'd be a simplistic and inadequate explanation of the realpolitik, but probably makes you feel better.

The only reason why U.S. national security interests are so expensive, and require an armed forces larger than the combined armies of the rest of the nations, is because the U.S. has made the running of an oil-dependent global commercial empire as part of their security interests! If the U.S. was just looking after its own borders it wouldn't need naval fleets and air bases covering the globe.

Name one country where the US maintains a base that the host country has told them to get out? Just one will do.

Are you serious, there are even territories within the USA that want their bases out....like Puerto Rico. There are demonstrations against the naval base in Okinawa for decades now, but the Okinawan's interests are ignored by the Japanese Government. Same with the bases in the Philippines; back when Cory Aquino became president after a popular uprising, she reneged on her promise to remove the naval and air force bases. We've covered the issue of buying off local authorities to keep these bases running before; it's only when the costs get too high for their worth, that the U.S. closes them down and moves to a new location.

[Jonsa]

Which is not going to last anyway! <snip rant>

You are absolutely right about the oil economy not lasting forever.

You look at it as some kind of conspiracy. I look at it as economic necessity.

Yes, we should be motivated to find a viable economic alternative to petroleum. Viable means it has to be portable, have a relatively safe method of distribution, have at least a comparable yield, have a comparable cost.

This means it requires an enormous manufacturing infrastructure eventually exceeding the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars currently invested in petroleum and its machinery.

So while you can lament about big oil and government conspiracies all you want, its all trumped by the fact that the world today runs of petroleum. Its going to take decades to move off it regardless of how racuously righteous anti oil/climate change proponents get.

The only reason why U.S. national security interests are so expensive, and require an armed forces larger than the combined armies of the rest of the nations, is because the U.S. has made the running of an oil-dependent global commercial empire as part of their security interests! If the U.S. was just looking after its own borders it wouldn't need naval fleets and air bases covering the globe.

Firstly I suggest you educate yourself on the size of the US armed forces (active and reserve)particularly in comparison to other nations. I beleive you want to refer to their budget which is approximately as large as the total of the next 18 nations combined.

THE ENTIRE GLOBE IS OIL DEPENDENT.

And please try to expand your perspective about the US global power projection. I suspect you were not an adult during the cold war.

Are you serious, there are even territories within the USA that want their bases out....like Puerto Rico. There are demonstrations against the naval base in Okinawa for decades now, but the Okinawan's interests are ignored by the Japanese Government. Same with the bases in the Philippines; back when Cory Aquino became president after a popular uprising, she reneged on her promise to remove the naval and air force bases. We've covered the issue of buying off local authorities to keep these bases running before; it's only when the costs get too high for their worth, that the U.S. closes them down and moves to a new location.

Yes I'm serious. Try again. There isn't a single US military base on foreign soil that is there against the express wishes of the host country. Not some demonstrators, but the government of the country.

And you are just plain wrong about what transpired in the philippines.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Jonsa