Activism Change

On Bush's love for Saddam

Question:

While I do not normally engage in net.debate

Of course not, Harel. If you engaged in debate, tons of the garbage you post to the net you would be proved inaccurate or just plain lies. Mercy, can’t have that now, can we? MD — —  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear, —    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I’m a Doctor…"

Response:

While I do not normally engage in net.debate (as is evidenced immediately by the non-zero amount of progress made as co-moderator of misc.activism.progressive), what little attention has been paid to the series so far merits a few comments: (1) I would suggest once again that we all stop talking about "we" when talking about Washington; any rational discussion or *thought* is seriously undermined as the nearly universally accepted although false thesis that "out intentions are good" severely hampers understanding of the world around us. (1.1) In particular, anyone who does not see that for Bush et al support, first and foremost,  whatever policies their corporate geopolitical plans can be most advanced by, and a that human rights, democracy, development, and all those nice words, are secondary considerations — usually not considerations at all, in fact, excepting consequences relating to political fallout, and that includes American lives — is staring the answer in the face with Saddam firmly in power, with U.S. support as per "Deterring Iraqi Democracy" and per the following post (part II of "Why Bush Supports Saddam"). (2) Regarding the motive being saving our skins from Iran and Iraq which were about to overthrow the U.S. government, "not weapons profits," that the sugar-coated language (standard in the mainstream (corporate) Free Press) translates into the decision to sell mass armaments to both sides, directly contributing to the death and ongoing misery of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Iranian men, women, and children. If we sugar-coat this, and much more; state that we are pursuing the National Interest and National Security; and have the mainstream Free Press report this with a straight face and avoid asking those who spout these pleasant phrases any embarrassing questions comparing the real world and doctrinal Truth, wholesale public ingestion of the "affair" usually follows. A nation (or, Corporate-Military-Industrial-Complex) which is actually interested in "Security" in the true sense of the word would pursue a global half to arms shipments into the region in conjunction with region-wide disarmament. I can only add that a further study of the history and facts behind the rhetoric — including a slow and careful reading of the Post-War Teach-In and footnotes — would shed more light on the matter; to cite one example, Saddam Hussein’s pursuit (and for pragmatic, not Mother-Theresa-like reasons, just as in the case of other leaders) of regional disarmament, opposed and blocked by Washington —     "In part for similar reasons, reduction of armaments has been a     "hypothetical creature." In April 1990, Bush flatly rejected a     proposal from his friend Saddam Hussein to eliminate weapons of     mass destruction from the Middle East.  One way to direct     petrodollars to the US economy has been to encourage arms sales.     Currently, Bush is proposing to sell $18 billion worth of arms to     his Middle East allies, with the Export-Import Bank underwriting     purchases, at below-market rates if necessary, a hidden tax to     benefit major sectors of industry." And, naturally, it is difficult — for those who have not seriously studied even the basic facts and history or Central and Latin America (by far the majority of Americans) — to believe that Our Leader(s) would or could directly support, with full knowledge, massive repression, state terrorism, murder, rape, torture, and other standard features of U.S. foreign policy, "merely" because it suits elite interests. Similarly, the impression that the invasion of Kuwait was not, as Chomsky accurately notes, something which "added little" to Saddam’s sordid record of mass-murder and repression, is natural enough, given the laser-like focus, of the large corporations in the business of selling mass-audiences to client advertising companies (the Free Press), which, as far as the issue of human rights, focus their attention, only on certain individuals/nations, and only at certain times (Saddam, if he returns to Properly-Obedient Murderous Dictator mode, as opposed to Bad, Disobedient Murderous Dictator mode, may yet come back into "favor" with "us" (Washington)), as dictated by the interests of Power. Those who read the section _The Background to the War_ poster earlier will be able to discern the continuing, logical pattern, between pre-August ‘90, and post-war Washington’s policy, as far as support for dictators, resufal to deal with Iraqi (and other) democratic opposition forces, massive sales of armaments, and so forth, with the very real possibility of further, future "cycles" of this nature, another fact among many which is next to unthinkable for the Free Press to allow themselves to see, let alone report. I will be glad to supply references and/or listserver-instructions by email to anyone but rather than further newsgroup discussions will return to the programming of further series, including more information I recently received based on Rep. Henry Gonzales’ investigations, of more love-triangles between Administration officials, their investments in armaments corporations, and Saddam’s military might. Harel — Regarding "is America in Decline" I can only suggest again the recently published (May 1992) _We’re Number One_ by Andrew Shapiro ($10 paper back, Vintage Books). The 40-part _Decline of America_ series I have reposted at least once between now and November, with supplements from Shapiro’s book. And it is difficult to resist suggesting once more that the term "big government" is another phrase employed by elites in thought control, so divert attention from the most trivial of all distinctions, namely, a government intervening in the economy on behalf of multinational corporations and the military industrial complex, robbing (and S&L looting) middle-income and poor America while enriching a tiny elite, while slashing funding of education, child nutrition, drug-treatment, infrastructure, etc (the consequences we continue to reap, from L.A. to the state of the national economy), versus a government "intervening" by spending the tax-dollars of it’s citizens, instead of as outlined above, to provide education, universally accessible health, inftastructure, clean and efficient transportation, and other crazy ideas, for the citizens it is supposed to "serve."

Response:

(1) I would suggest once again that we all stop talking about "we" when talking about Washington; any rational discussion or *thought* is seriously undermined as the nearly universally accepted although false thesis that "out intentions are good" severely hampers understanding of the world around us.

This is a very good starting ground – the use of "we" to enjoin one with one’s government is a very problematic base point. It causes every following argument under discussion, whether red herring or point of discussion, to come under the twist of cognitive dissonance – the mental/ego force that makes one try to keep their position consistant.  Without the "we" concept as a starting point, one is freer to say what they truely feel or think, without having to remain by the side of the government, which is simply a short term elected body and head of state. If it turns out that the use of "we" has been assimilated by repetitious exposure to articles in newspapers, magazines, the radio and television, then it has been a subtle type of political control of the type that Orwell feared, except it was far more subtle that the methods of which he wrote. Note above that I said "IF".  I don’t know the actual origins and propagation of the usage.  It might have been ancient Greece. But things were different then. –Donald Teed

Response:

While I do not normally engage in net.debate

don’t be so modest Harel! Before you got your very own newsgroup to censor you where a fairly active (though often beaten) debater. You even said that I was "Too tricky to deal with" because I did too good a job documenting Sandinista human rights abuses. (1) I would suggest once again that we all stop talking about "we" when talking about Washington;

No I don’t think I will do this. I didn’t vote for Bush or either of my Senators but it is still MY government (of the people and all that). WE are responsible for what our government does both good and bad. any rational discussion or *thought* is seriously undermined as the nearly universally accepted although false thesis that "out intentions are good" severely hampers understanding of the world around us.

This is called ‘begging the question’. That is where you assume the truth of what you are trying to prove as part of your arguement (I’ll bet you learned to do this from Chomsky). No Harel, I assert our intentions are good and intended to promote the maximum good over the long run. You may not agree, but it is a serious logical error to assume this unproven assertion as fact. (1.1) In particular, anyone who does not see that for Bush et al support, first and foremost,  whatever policies their corporate geopolitical plans can be most advanced by, and a that human rights, democracy, development, and all those nice words, are secondary considerations — usually not considerations at all, in fact,

Gee Harel, the exact same thing could be said of you. You have never expressed concern about Sandinista rights abuses and indeed the only time you show ANY concern for rights is when you can blame it on the US. When the Sandinistas jailed and killed thousands without charge you where silent but when the current government enacts a sodomy law you jumped all over them. Suppose the Sandinistas had enacted an anti-sodomy law (possible since they have done lots of things far worse). Does anybody out there actually believe the MAP crowd would ever even mention it? And, naturally, it is difficult — for those who have not seriously studied even the basic facts and history or Central and Latin America

For those of you who are new to the net, people who have "seriously studied even the basic facts and history of Central and Latin America" are those people who agree with Harel. while slashing funding of education, child nutrition, drug-treatment, infrastructure, etc

This I would like to see documented. Can you show me a single year where federal spending on ANY of these was below the previous year? Social spending under Bush has been growing by leaps and bounds.    Allen — | Allen W. Sherzer | "Giving power and money to government is like giving   |

Response:

   "In part for similar reasons, reduction of armaments has been a    "hypothetical creature." In April 1990, Bush flatly rejected a    proposal from his friend Saddam Hussein to eliminate weapons of

                       ^^^^^^ I can see that is a totally non-biased quote! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    mass destruction from the Middle East.  One way to direct    petrodollars to the US economy has been to encourage arms sales.    Currently, Bush is proposing to sell $18 billion worth of arms to    his Middle East allies, with the Export-Import Bank underwriting    purchases, at below-market rates if necessary, a hidden tax to    benefit major sectors of industry." And it is difficult to resist suggesting once more that the term "big government" is another phrase employed by elites in thought control, so divert attention from the most trivial of all distinctions, namely, a government intervening in the economy on behalf of multinational corporations and the military industrial complex, robbing (and S&L looting) middle-income and poor America while enriching a tiny elite, while slashing funding of education, child nutrition, drug-treatment, infrastructure, etc (the consequences we continue to reap, from L.A. to the state of the national economy), versus a government "intervening" by spending the tax-dollars of it’s citizens, instead of as outlined above, to provide education, universally accessible health, inftastructure, clean and efficient transportation, and other crazy ideas, for the citizens it is supposed to "serve."

   NOT!  Big government means that NO ONE gets special subsidy, the rich, the poor, or the middle-class. Big government means involving government in EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE, economic and personal! I have not met a single person who doesn’t think taxes are too high, tax code too complicated, regulations too thick, and laws too complicated and oppresive.    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus, (600 BC?)   Let’s look at how the liberal left defines "slashing" the budget. Let’s assume the current budget is $1 trillion. The Democratic Congress proposes a budget of $1.9 trillion. The conservatives stop it, trim it down to $1.6 trillion and resubmit.  The budget passes, but liberals claim the budget has been "cut" (slashed) even though total spending has increased by $.6 trillion (in all areas).  What "slashing" really means is that the liberals didn’t get all their special interest pork barrel programs fully funded at the levels they liked, hence the terminology "slashed."    Watch for more liberal new-speak, like redefining "genocide" to mean "unemployment" and "welfare cut".

Response:

Filed under: Global Activism

Related Posts

• ::: Sunspot Cycles & Activist Strategy :::
• zqnn
• On a general note
• Maquiladoras in America: Factory in Berkeley poisons labor
• Bush Courts Catholic Vote