|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| -A very good book about U.S. foreign policy and instead of just criticizing it, it actually offers solutions the U.S. could take to combat these problems if it was its true interest. The book covers a wide range of issues such as democracy in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Israeli Lobby, the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia, anti-semitism, U.S. interests, and many details in between. Generally, the U.S. will support democracy as long as it coincides with its interests. -On criticizing U.S. foreign policy on Iran, Chomsky points out how the U.S. are friends with Saudi Arabia, but not Iran despite how Saudi Arabia is more fundamental and how "Iran looks like a beacon of women's emancipation" relative to Saudi Arabia. Chomsky also points out how there was a bargain between the EU and Iran to stop uranium enrichment if the EU took care of Iran's "security issues." Iran stopped their enrichment, but EU didn't keep their bargain under U.S. pressure. Therefore, Iran continued to enrich uranium, while it was reported that Iran violated its committments. -On the War on Terror, Achcar and Chomsky talk about how the U.S. commits terrorism, and how the government cannot officially define "terrorism" due to the inability to distinguish terrorism we do to others and terrorism they do to us. They also quote Bush on "states that harbors terrorists are terrorists states and have to be treated as such." Yet, the U.S. will not extradite Luis Posada Carriles, a conspirator of the blowing up of the Cubana airliner that killed seventy-three people in 1976 and various other terrorist acts, and now lives safely in America. The same goes for Orlando Bosch, a co-conspirator of the Cubana airliner and according to the FBI, "involvement in about thirty terrorist acts." Bosch received a presidential pardon by Bush Sr. -They also argue how in the beginnings of Afghanistan, the U.S. threatened to cut off foreign aid to Afghanistan, potentially starving millions of civilians to death or how the U.S. simply wants to "flex their muscles" in Afghanistan by bombing it. It goes on to say how the war is irrational. The U.S. was in contact with the Taliban, telling them to handover Bin Laden without any evidence. If the U.S. had evidence for Bin Laden being responsible for 9/11, they'd consider handing over Bin Laden. There were options to negotiate, but the U.S. ignored it and bombed Afghanistan, "flexing their muscles." If the U.S. really cared about Bin Laden, the U.S. should conduct an investigation, seek extradition for Bin Laden, and provide evidence for his involvement in 9/11. -On democracy they continue to argue that the U.S. promote democracy only if it is in its interest to do so. They cite the beginnings on the war in Iraq, how the countries that supported the Iraq War was democratic, despite its unpopularity in the polls. Where as Turkey did not support the war, as reflected by its population by over 90%, lacked "democratic credentials." -Chomsky once gave a lecture on anti-semitism and how it has changed. He read a racist, anti-arab document, but replaced the word "Arab" with "Jews". The document read like it was from the Nazi archives and there were gasps from the audience. When Chomsky revealed that he misled the audience and how the quotes were actually about Arabs, "there was a sigh of relief in the audience. [I] hadn't anticipated this kind of reaction; apparently, as long as extreme racist comments of the kind that sound like Nazis are about Palestinians and Arabs, then it's fine. But if you were to say anything like that about Jews, the place would blow up." -On American democracy, Chomsky argues the major shortcomings of the U.S. He mentions the Brazilian Worker's Party how the president was actually a person from the general population and there are many labor movements and organizations to join. As opposed to the 2004 election where both candidates came from "extreme privilege and political power, both went to the same elite university; both joined the same secret society... for training people to be members of the ruling elite." Later on, Chomsky continues to further the point by citing Cheney. "When ABC News Martha Raddatz cited polling data showing majority opposition to the Iraq war, Cheney responded, 'So?" Asked, 'So-you don't care what the Amercan people think?' he responded, 'No,' and explained, 'I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.'... White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked whether the public should have "input." Her reply was: "You had your input. The American people have input every four years..." | | |
| -I've watched the Watchmen Director's Cut for the second time, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. As before, I did not have a problem with its length even though it runs more than 3 hours. It's been awhile since I've seen the theatrical version, but if I remember correctly, the director's cut was better. The opening fight scene between the Comedian and Veidt with Unforgettable by Nat King Cole playing in the background is somewhat twisted and amazing. The opening credits combines powerful imagery of reality and alternate realities such as the famous WWII kiss, grassy knoll assassination of JFK, and Kent State shootings with The Times They Are A Changin by Bob Dylan that captures the era perfectly. As most people agree, Rorschach (Haley) was a great character, filled with uncompromising principles though maniacal, still somewhat respectable. The jump between memories and present time was great, especially with Dr. Manhattan, which shows his perspective of time as best as film can offer. His narration shows distance from humans and adds to the character development.
-Personally, the most interesting character was Dr. Manhattan because of the cold reactions and behavior of the way he views humans and the environment. The movie's theme seems to be wrapped around the Dr. Manhattan. What happens when you're invincible? What if you knew everything, see everything, and can change everything? Surprisingly, it shows distance and fatalism, not engagement, free will, and change. He shows how insignificant humans and civilization is, and how significant humans are, all at the same time. Dr. Manhattan brings up many issues such as free will (although he was very fatalistic), miracles, God, absolute power, many other symbols and paradoxes, and many political implications.
-Rorschach's principles are essentially neoconservative, viewing good and evil as black and white. Hopefully, this will be as glorified as a person of such principles will be glorified. In addition, the death of Hollis Mason was great. While the graphic novel was somewhat light on his death, and the theatrical version had it cut out, the director's cut did it justice. It gave Hollis Mason a fighting chance combined with the nostalgia of the "Golden Age," fighting as if he was fighting his old arch enemies made you cheer for him, though he still tragically died.
| | |
| -I've been watching loads of documentaries, and recently on the Khmer Rouge and East Timor. But putting everything together from U.S. foreign policy, I am becoming more and more ashamed. When I see a M-16 on a guerilla or repressive government, it disgusts me. What I've learned is that when governments condemn a government, it may in actuality be supporting it by third party countries such as the Iran-Contra affair (Nicaragua) and Singapore (Khmer Rouge), and when a government supports a repressive government, the vocabulary is highly selective, manipulated, and euphemized. Also when the U.S. intervenes in the name of democracy, I will mostly likely think it's selling an intervention/ war to the people because when the U.S. intervene for economic reasons or support dictatorships and terrorists, she loses all credibility. I've known that the U.S. is the number one arms exporter in the world, making up almost 50% of the world's arms export, but watchining these documentaries shows what these arms are doing around the world, as opposed to just reading about it. -John Pilger may very well be my new hero. He asks incredibly tough questions to the politicians he interviews to the point that the interview gets cancelled. That's the way the press should operate, keeping the government accountable, and not be a mouth piece for government or corporate propaganda. Keep in mind he's an Australian journalist, and has a high emphasis on Britain and the U.S. -So here's some documentaries I've been watching (many if not all films are graphic):
-Go to www.freedocumentaries.com
-The Panama Deception
-Plan Colombia- A great piece considering the U.S. are building bases in Colombia now
-John Pilgers' special reports:
-Breaking the Silence (on Iraq and Afghanistan and I would like to highlight 34:38-35:55):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-210088912352527308
-Year Zero (on Cambodia, Khmer Rouge, and Pol Pot):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9159164859238659487
Follow up report from part 7/37-11/37: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4yH1iZRhi0
The Betrayal (Cambodia and arms exportation):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5034541050212117056&hl=en
-Death of a Nation (on East Timor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhaBSPGBXco
-Nicaragua: A Nation's Right to Survive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJWNof0e2TM
-An up to date AlJazeera report on Nicaragua (non-John Pilger):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpEhi9XYllA&feature=PlayList&p=8CF9046CBCE7F810&index=0&playnext=1 -It's a lot to watch, but that's not even including Guatemala, Iran, Korea, Chile, El Salvador, Israel, and Vietnam. | | |
| -I have caught up a little more with the Iranian protests and this is what I think. At its core, I'm a bit more skeptical of the American media. One simply has to watch Buying the War by Bill Moyer and see how the media works hand in hand with the government, as opposed to keeping the government accountable. For example, pertaining to the Iraq War, the major news network such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were overwhelmingly focused on the threat of Iraq over WMD's, link with Al-Qaeda, and dictatorship, and these networks did so in the interest of finding favor with the government, competition with other networks, and patriotism. The smaller news networks who saw the lack of proof and irrationality of war was pushed aside. In another example, this was visible with the coverage on Russia's invasion of Georgia. U.S. simply assumed that Russia cast the first stone, and sent $1 billion military aid to Georgia. This was not the case with other international sources as they debated who comitted the first strike. When it was later confirmed that Georgia attacked first, to my knowledge, this story was barely covered, and Condaleeza Rice simply responded, "I'm not surprised." -How does this apply to Iran? It applys in the ideas we assume and the way the media covers the issue. The first assumption is that the election was rigged, and I think this assumption stems from the unfriendly terms with Iran since 1979 and therefore whoever is against the established government are the "good guys." I'm not saying election was not rigged, but I think no one has any solid evidence that's not based on conclusions from suspicious, ambigous behavior. Someone mentioned that Ahmadinejad was declared the winner before the votes were finalized, and therefore the election was suspiciously rigged. On the other hand, this has happened in American history, although the announced winner lost when the votes were finalized. I think it's possible, if not just as likely, to declare yourself the winner early on, and actually win. The press also covers the government as brutal and repressive, but fails to acknowledge that is what free states and dictatorships do. For example, in the 30's when WWI veterans (AKA Bonus Army) rallied to receive the G.I. Bill of Rights earlier than 1944 (when it was to be ratified), the government cracked down on the veterans and several people were killed. The same was true for Vietnam War protests during the Kent State shootings, where several protestors were shot and killed. Repression is not only done by dictators and oppressive governments, but free states as well. -Maybe our past brutality should not justify Iran's brutality, and the truth is, the riots are brutal. Watching someone die, blood spilling from the mouth and nose, with a haunting stare is hard to watch. But before attributing the government as inherently evil, we should ask ourselves a couple questions. What is the government's point of view on domestic riots? Wouldn't it be something to the affect of "we need to protect our power structure," or "we need to protect our free society," depending on who's rioting and where? Even if they wanted to keep their power, they would think that they're using it for good or are somehow justified or necessary, not view themselves brutal oppressive dictators. What I am implying is that we need to look at this from not just American vs. Iranian point of view, but a government point of view. Sometimes, repression is not necessarily a tactic of a repressive government, but a natural reaction of any government, though noted not all the time. Other questions to consider include: To what degree of repression is necessary to call a state repressive? The U.S. does it, but we're a free state. What about Iran? Free state relative to who? The West or Middle East? -Iran has claimed that the protests stem from the West meddling with Middle Eastern politics, but Obama has refuted this. But according to the former U.S. national security advisor Bren Sowcroft, there are U.S. intelligence agents in Iran. The details are unknown and even Sowcroft seem to be ambigious to the role of those agents in Iran. My guess is that intelligence agents are probably in Iran, but have limited power in changing the outcome of the protests. But are there other ways of affecting Iran in different ways such as the media outside of Iran and these external sources going into Iran? Can this be considered meddling with Middle Eastern politics? If it is, to what extent and is it ethical? -My conclusion is strictly consequentialist. If the majority really voted for Mosavi and the election was really rigged, then the people have a right demonstrate. If the majority people really voted for Ahmadinejad, then the Moussavi's supporters are just poor losers and should accept the election. What I am saying is that Moussavi's camp is viewed as the democratic "good guys" and the government is the evil dictator in Western media, and I am skeptical of that view based on past news media coverage, and I have not heard any statement that convinced me the election was rigged or not. I am also skeptical because emphasizing Moussavi serves U.S. interests, and since it would be unwise to intervene, the government can let the media and the people take care of it. By doing so, will it become another mess such as Iraq, or be a success story such as South Africa's break from Apartheid, or will anything happen at all? Moussavi and his supporters are inspiring and their fight for democracy certainly stirs the blood. Lets hope Moussavi has the majority and not forget that there are also many Ahmadinejad supporters too. We may not like it, but it's their democracy, not ours. A more intelligent debate from AlJazeera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA4yZfyl3b0
Former US national security advisor Bren Sowcroft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2SALuISyk | | |
| Footage of the riots from BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bb-2P9umh0
Footage of riots from random person (Contains graphic content): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0LQyuSvJ9M
Footage from and report from CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnVdIihkQXU
Footage and report from CBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDiie_7MuBk
Footage and report from AlJazeera (Contains graphic content): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bwXG65PFjI | | |
|
