Liike28's Xanga

Perilous Power

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:49:30 GMT

-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..."

Watchmen Director's Cut

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:01:03 GMT

-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.

America: The #1 Arms Exporter

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:03:06 GMT

-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.

Iranian Protests

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:37:57 GMT

-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

Iranian Protests

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:11:10 GMT

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

Terrorism, Crime, and Double Standards... Again...

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:37:05 GMT

-I was writing my previous entry, when a question came to mind: Why is Carlos Bledsoe (Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad), the man who shot two Army recruiters, killing one, charged with terrorist acts, but not Scott Roeder, the man who killed Dr. Tiller? To my knowledge, terrorism is not a particularly well defined term, but there are two common elements. The first is that terrorism is based on ideology, the second is the targetting of civilians. Let's compare Bledsoe with Roeder. Both murderers were ideologically based. Roeder's act was based on the issue of abortion while Bledsoe was based on American foreign policy. Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller, a civilian, while Bledsoe shot two Army-Navy recruiters, while being based at home, I still consider military personnel and not civilians.

-So here are my questions. How do we distinguish between criminal acts, hate crimes, and terrorism? Why is Bledsoe charged with terrorist acts but not Roeder when Roeder fits the definition of terrorism better than Bledsoe? Is the difference really about civilian vs. government personel and not civilian vs. military/non-civilian? Even if that is true, shouldn't it be a felony, not terrorism? Why is Bledsoe's recent conversion to Islam such a highlight?

-I am by no means trying to defend Bledsoe, but I am suggesting that the charges be reasonable and that laws should be clear, even though in this case, they're obviously not. Terrorism is a hot cognition, it gets everyone excited and think a certain person or group is the epitome of evil, but that is psychologically unfair for the defendant, especially when the lines for terrorism is blurred. Are we unconsciously saying that when a white Christian murders someone, it's criminal, but when a Muslim murders someone, it's terrorism?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html?iref=newssearch

GITMO Detainee, Habeas Corpus, and Nurture

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:11:14 GMT

Gitmo detainee speaks out:

-When I heard about this man, I was rather amazed by his determination to life and his character to not hold a grudge towards Americans. This is exactly why habeas corpus, the right to defend one self in front of a court, is so important. Some people think that closing Gitmo is a threat to national security, should just keep prisoners there for an indefinite amount of time, and think everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, but the problem is that not everyone is a terrorist. Some were accidentally caught in the crossfire or simply wrongfully suspected as terrorists. Sweeping statements such as no habeas corpus for all prisoners is crude and a troubling idea. As I saw someone comment on YouTube:

We don't give people habeas corpus because they "deserve" it, we give them habeas corpus because it forces the accuser to make a full and compelling case against the accused. This idea that certain people are "bad enough" not to deserve habeas corpus misses the whole point of our system. If they're so bad, then you should be able to prove it in court.

-Slightly changing the subject, lets look at this issue from a psychological viewpoint of behaviorism, specifically the Skinnerian idea that the environment affects us-or nature vs. nurture. This would seem like a contradiction to nurture. It would make sense to me that prisons such as Gitmo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib would infuriate the Arab community, but in this specific case, I believe America was fortunate to not make another enemy. But let's take a look at other current events. I believe the killer of Dr. George Tiller, Scott Roeder was a product of the environment- at least in part. One can be pro-life and not murder a pro-choice doctor. People react in different ways but I still believe that Roeder was a product of long term past events instilled as beliefs. The second example is the recent shooting of two military recruiters, killing one, by Carlos Bledsoe, also known as Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. This is one example of America's foreign policy having unintended consequences, turning a moderate Muslim into extremism, and a person becoming a product of the environment.

-People like the idea of free will, taking responsibilities for themselves. I'll have to admit, most people do think the environment is a factor to who we are, but my guess is that they under estimate the power of the environment. There are certainly exceptional people who seem to overcome their harsh circumstances, but the problem is that everyone thinks they're the exception when they're not. As a Christian, to think that American Christians are better because we're a free, moral people is completely flawed. We think Muslims are inferior because of their instable countries and terrorism, disregarding our actions overseas and the environmental obstacles they have to overcome. I would rebuttal by mentioning Scott Roeder. There was no immediate threat to his life or welfare, but he still murdered Dr. Tiller because of his beliefs. If you get to know people of different religion, especially in the U.S., they're very friendly. You may disagree with me and start rationalizing why Christians or Americans are great, but I think the problem is that it is unconscious in beliefs, but visible in the ideas and actions we support, and we're blind to it because it seems so rational.

-Another example include the recent Swine Flu craze, when people started scapegoating Mexicans, a product of fear in our circumstances, founded or not. To me, this is not too different from Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's. One should keep in mind that Jews were not particularly liked in the U.S. as well as Germany, but with the combination of a worldwide depression and Hitler's leadership, they started scapegoating the Jews. Germans were not an insane country different from any other country, as it was evident in the lower ranks at the end of the war. Even our own soldiers noticed that Germans were decent people, and could have been friends under different circumstances. The truth is, we like to categorize people as good or evil, especially when it's other people, because it's easy and efficient-although not necessarily accurate, but when it happens to us, we make exceptions and rationalize. We make ourselves out to be complicated and diverse and therefore making our actions necessary or acceptable.

-My point is that we are ultimately equal as humans. It does not matter if we're Christian, American, Muslim, or any other group, we're vulnerable to how the environment manipulate us, whether in fear or rationality. I know that we believe everyone to be equal, but unconsciously treat others as unequal, such as nationalism- thinking America is the greatest country in the world or have the best military in the world. Ultimately, we need to feel unique which is fine, but we need to understand the consequences of being unique and not start dividing people. I believe that we are better off thinking others as equal and understand why as equals, we do the things that we do, instead of thinking people as inherently a certain way.

The Fountain

Wed, 27 May 2009 19:23:29 GMT

-The Fountain is one of the most beautiful movies you will ever see, and I just watched it for the third time, trying to make sense of it all, and here is my take on it. If you haven't seen the movie, you're not going to understand any of this. I pretty much went with the explanation shown by the links below. I am assuming that the modern day story line is the true story, the conquistador storyline was from the book written by Izzy, and space storyline was Tommy finishing the story as Izzy requested. What confuses me is that the Tom from the future appears momentarily in the conquistador storyline, then changes back to Tomas again. Tomas then metamorphosize into plants. Assuming the futuristic Tom and Tomas are both in The Fountain as mentioned above, is the futuristic Tom and Tomas the same person? But how is that possible since Tomas metamorphosized into plants?

-My explanation as of right now is that futuristic Tom and Tomas is the same person in character, but two different persons physically. Tomas is the first father, but so is the future Tom. I think there is a theme of everything coming together, specifically in a full circle, therefore requiring some sort of bend in time. The future Tom is the first father who sacrifices himself to create earth, and Tomas is reincarnated in the past to search for the Tree of Life, and dies from drinking the sap of the Tree of Life. In essence, the story ends where it began, during the 1500's. The end is the beginning, as this is a repeated theme in the film. Of course this is all a reflection of the contemporary Tom and his struggle with death, but there are two realities within the modern story, which was the choice for Tom to work and the choice to follow Izzy out the door. As Tom realizes the inevitability of death, he decides to follow Izzy, a sign of revelation and as a reaction, to seize the day. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still inconsistencies, but I think it's coherent for the most part.

-An alternative explanation (3rd link) is that the future Tom storyline is true and a continuation of the contemporary Tom. The conquistador storyline is still written by Izzy. The problem is once again the future Tom appearing in the Tomas storyline. To that, I'd offer the same explanation as above. Everything about the alternative storyline is coherent, except future Tom's appearance in the 16th Century. If the future Tom is true, how can he appear in a fictional story? That is unless Tomas was also real, but if that was true, present Tom's writing of the book would lose significant value.

-As to the theme of the movie and what it all means, I think it is more than about making peace with death as I previously thought. As mentioned above it has to do with coming full circle and the paradox of life and death. From death comes life, as the birth of stars come from the death of stars. From life comes death as shown by death from the Tree of Life- and back to life again through flowers. Tomas and future Tom are opposites in the sense that Tomas died pursuing life, and did not make peace with death, but died despite it. Future Tom made peace with death, and was born again with the stars. To live is to die and to die is to live. Finally, the pursuit of immortality is an illusion, but the revelation is that to choose death, to make peace with death, is to live forever through others and the only way to truly live.

Review and explanation by Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/REVIEWS/709130305/1023
Explanation by Matt Withers: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/COMMENTARY/70914001
Alternative explanation: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/LETTERS/70917001
Multiple explanations: http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=3975

America and Democracy

Tue, 26 May 2009 20:50:51 GMT

-I know that in many ways, Americans think the U.S. is the city on a hill, the prime example of, and epitome of democracy. Our American democracy is so great that we spread it through the barrel of a gun. The more I learn about the world history of the post WWII era, the more I disagree, and this trend in history also affects the war in Iraq. I'm not going to mention the lack of democracy through lobbies, special interests, and corporatism, but simply through history and American foreign policy. I know this could come off as blasphemous as it is just after Memorial Day, but in my defense, I separate the military from politics. I'd think of the government and military in this way: the government is the brain and the military are the limbs. If we don't want to be fighting wars, we must treat the source, not the symptom, and in this case, it is the way we think about politics/ politicians- that is the brain. Either way, this post has more to do with the government and the CIA than the government and the military. I write it here because I'm terribe when I talk about politics and have difficulty making a complete and coherent argument. Here, I can put my ideas in a coherent way.

-In 1953, Iran was dissatisfied with their profit from oil, receiving only 15% of the profit, while British Petroleum (also known as BP) received the rest. This was compared to the 50% profit the neighboring oil rich countries received. Iran threatened to nationalize their oil, so Britain then asked the U.S. for help. During the Truman adminstration, the U.S. stayed out of the issue, but when the Eisenhower administration took over, the U.S. intervened. This was done by executing Operation Ajax where Iranian citizens were paid to riot in the streets. The Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was labelled a communist despite their democratic and parliamentry system, and was arrested. The U.S. then installed the Shah of Iran, which was an autocratic and repressive regime.

-The next year, the Eisenhower administration intervened for economic interests. In 1954, the freely elected President Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA because the U.S. and United Fruit company (now known as Chiquita) did not like President Arbenz' land reforms. Military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas then replaced President Arbenz. In 1973, with the help of the CIA, Chilean Army General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende. During the military coup d'etat, thousands were killed, imprisoned, and tortured. In the late 1970's-80's, the U.S. supported the military regime of El Salvador where 75,000 people died during repression or the civil war. The famous Archbishop Oscar Romero asked the U.S. to stop exporting arms to El Salvador, but was assassinated by the government in 1980.

-As a divergence and to be fair, the Latin America interventions were done in the context of the Cold War. That being said, the coup in Iran and Guatemala was completely unnecessary. Prime Minister Mossadegh and President Arbenz were labelled communists so that it could be an excuse to intervene, not because they were actually communists. The Chile and El Salvador interventions are debatable because the military regime in El Salvador was fighting leftist rebel groups, and a socialist president in Chile may seem threatening. With that in mind, we should not view socialism and communism in different regions of the world as one group, just as we shouldn't view "terrorists" as all the same. Different groups of terrorists have different intentions, just as different socialist groups have different intentions (such as Vietnam). And one should question the Democratic Paradox. Is democracy valid only when the figures we favor get elected? What if a party elected endangers the democratic process? But continuing on democracy and the U.S., overthrowing these governments are undemocratic in absolute terms. There's a difference between anti-communism and democracy in the Cold War context, as being anti-communist is not necessarily pro-democratic. In fact, it can be undemocratic from these examples.

-The U.S. is also friends to China and Vietnam, both communists, friends with Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy more oppressive than Iran, and Musharraf and Pakistan which is essentially a military dictatorship. This is not to say being friends with these countries is undemocratic, but there is a certain degree of hypocrisy, especially in the way we view Iran and Cuba. It also shows that the U.S. can have diplomatic relations with unfriendly countries and don't have to overthrow their governments.

-And now, onto Iraq. These points are mostly made from the book Perilous Power by Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar. According to a Gallup poll released in Bagdad in which it asked: "Why do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq?" 1% said the war was waged to bring democracy; 5% said it was to help Iraqis; 4% said it was to destroy WMD's; 43% said the motive was to "rob Iraq's oil."

-According to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), he asked the U.S. and Britain to just implement UN Security Council Resolution 688 of 1991, which would prevent the regime from using heavy weapons such as tanks by limited allied bombings. The people could then revolt from the inside. If we wanted to avoid our dilemma in Iraq, the U.S. should have listened to Hakim, but we invaded Iraq, probably because of economic or geopolitical reasons. If SCIRI's revolution failed, we still could have invaded Iraq anyway.

-There were also tensions between Ali al-Sistani and the head of Coalition Provisional Government Paul Bremer. Bremer wanted to draft Iraq's constitution himself, but it was rejected by Sistani, which insisted the constitution should be written by the government after the election. Sistani wanted immediate free elections, but Bremer tried to postpone the elections for as long as possible. Bremer and the U.S. also tried to install Iyad Allawi by giving him massive support and money, but failed to gain support from the people in the election.

-In the end, I think if the U.S. listened to Hakim and Sistani, gave the Iraqis more responsibility, was not trying to promote its own interests in Iraqi politics, and actually cared about democracy in Iraq, both the U.S. and Iraq would be better off. Americans debate about whether we should have intervened in Iraq, but while I believe we shouldn't, this shows that it's not necessarily about "should we intervene," which implies the use of force or not, but "how do we intervene," which implies the degree of use of force. I think as Americans, we give ourselves too much credit promoting democracy in Iraq, and the failures are the Iraqi's fault, but this shows that the Iraqis do want democracy, but they're not only fighting against their own internal regional factions, but also U.S. interests, interests which may not be the interest of the Iraqis. If we look closer into the details of Iraq, the U.S. may actually harm Iraq's democracy by its occupation and excessive force. Yet, we still claim to have brought democracy to Iraq because we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Maybe what we should be asking is not "Is Iraq better off if the U.S. overthrew Hussein?" but "Would Iraq be better off if the U.S. let the Iraqi people overthrow Hussein?"

-Finally, as quoted from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff under Colin Powell, from the documentary The Israel Lobby, "Was oil the number one influence on President Bush and Vice President Cheney? Or was WMD? Or was spreading democracy? And don't believe it for a moment, they didn't even think about spreading democracy when they started this war. They transmogrified the mission into starting democracy simply to appease the American people and to give them some reason to support the war..."

The Power of Nightmares and Jesse Ventura

Wed, 20 May 2009 06:23:47 GMT

-The Power of Nightmares is one extremely interesting documentary that looks at the history of Islamic fundamentalism and neoconservatism side by side. Both seem to be a reaction to the materialism in the U.S. Based on the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, the Islamic fundamentalist saw the materialism as corruption of the people and government. It originally started as a religious movement to take over the local government such as Algiers and Egypt, but as they failed to gain support of the people because they were too violent, the Islamic fundamentalists turned to what they thought was the "source of the corruption," the U.S. Based on the ideas of Leo Strauss, the neoconservatives, in order to retain their morals, the U.S. needed to view the world in morally absolute terms and be united against an evil entity. This was originally Communism, now it is terrorism. This idea of uniting against a common enemy is not particularly new. For example, much of the world united against Hitler in WWII. It sounded like neoconservatism had noble roots in that sense, but in its application of uniting against an enemy, facts were distorted or exaggerated in the way we view our enemies. In short, it is really a film about the politics of fear and the idea that neoconservatism is essentially believing in nothing because our enemies are based on misinformation. It seems that in the politics of fear, we have lost the original goal of unity and morals and what we're left with is the irony of needing to lie in order to save our morals, see others as pure evil, and killing them, which ironically destroys our morals.

-This 3-part documentary can be found on the internet. Each part is 1 hour long:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

-Jesse Ventura seems to be making some extra TV appearances recently, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I heard he wasn't a particularly good governor. I wouldn't really know because I was not as aware of politics then as I am now. I like his intimidating deep voice which otherwise would be drowned out from loud, nagging hosts that don't let their guests speak. Interestingly, Sean Hannity's language is exactly like that of neoconservatism mentioned in The Power of Nightmares-the last bit about Reagan taking on evil (second link).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dn2M484o-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14-A4yqBc0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoFfVQPSIOQ

-On a random note, I think of WWII and the Germans and despite their obvious racism towards the Jews (not to imply the rest of the world wasn't racist), they didn't know that the government was killing Jews in death camps. As infuriating as that is to hear, if you don't know something, it's hard to blame them for what they don't know. When the war was over, they admitted their mistakes and moved on. But now, the U.S. tortures, and its citizens knows it, but some don't apologize, but justifies it. Now that's a dangerous mindset.