Actually, speaking of the UN, I disagree with the pundits who claim that the US should pull out of the U.N. because they have done nothing for us, even though we pay nearly 30% of the bills. I believe we should pull out because the U.N. has done nothing for anyone (positive anyway)! Is corrupt inaction a lesser evil than action?
Yes there are evil forces at work in the US Government. Are we to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that these things do not happen. Of course not, and I’m sure there is more truth than fiction hidden behind the “black helicopter conspiracy theories”. However, it is a mistake, as Johnny eloquently pointed out, to pretend that these things happened independently of any other “evils” in the world. To blame everything bad in the world since 1913 on the US is easily as simplistic and naive as assuming that the US is nothing but a freedom-loving, democracy spreading benevolent “true” democracy.
And I stand beside an earlier point: It is easy to sit here and take a look at all of the decisions of US leaders and say “Look at this guy, we supported him, and look what happened” or “Hey it was just Chiquita Bananas, they could have gone somewhere else, and let the poor farmers farm, right?” However, you and I both know that’s not the whole picture. That’s so easy to say here on our computers in 2004, but if you want to pretend that a substantial Communist presense in the Western Hemisphere (much less 90 miles off our shore) wasn’t a legitimate threat, then it is not the rest of us who are living in a dream world.
Do you know for certain, if you were in the same position (20, 40, 60 years ago) as some of our government’s leaders given the threats of the time, and the inability to predict the future, that you definitely wouldn’t have made some of the same decisions? Now I’m not saying that these decisions were the best ones, all I’m saying is, were we living “in a vacuum”.
And are you also arguing that given the importance of these situations, the danger of despotic movements (no we weren’t the only one), that these things should have just been put to a vote? By who? The U.N. member states? Or the (as you describe them, not me) fat, lazy, greedy, “barbaric”, militant, ignorant, deluded US population?
Now take a look at the governments of some of the most vocal and critical U.N. members (who are apparently reaping the benefits of said membership) and tell me whether their governments are less corrupt than ours, and then tell me that we’re not lucky that ours is not any more corrupt than it is. Do you worry when you get out of bed in the morning and go to work, whether you’re going to be kidnapped and shot in the head because you are posting this “anti-American” sentiment? Are you scared that your family isn’t safe. Tell me honestly that you would feel safer saying the things that you do and having the freedoms that you have under any of the governments that our evil (and apparently quite adept contrary to popular belief) CIA displaced. I don’t think you’re wrong, or that Howard Zinn’s and Noam Chomsky’s facts are inherently non-factual. They are simply not the whole story.
Are you saying that the populace of the US really truly, deeply wants to just stay out of other country’s affairs, and the only reason that they are so “militant” is because of Halliburton/KBR? Are you actually insinuating that since Hitler was just citing US policies, that we should let the Zarqawis of the world continue to behead people, since he is after all citing the beliefs of a religion that you feel has been unfairly persecuted against and slighted? Are you actually suggesting that the decisions a government leader makes should consider other governments first, and the security of the nation which he/she represents second, and at the same time should completely stay out of the affairs of the rest of the world?
You see the facts about the events of the bast 86 years, since the Fed was created and the Balfour declaration and all of that are important facts to study, but one must be careful. Let me quote one of my most admired scholars:
“It is true that [Chomsky] is critical of the US gov’s action over the last , say, 60 years, but it is true that the US has done many bad things. If you feel he needs to balance that with also citing the good things the US does, fine, that’s just not his way.”
I’m glad that that has been acknowledged, and here’s why:
Facts are simply facts, and taken out of context of the “rest of the story” they are completely useless. We could fight all day about what happened and who did what, but the reasons for doing things and the rightness and wrongness or doing things requires context…always. It is possible to not dispute the facts, but to nevertheless dispute the conclusions. It is precisely this lack of context that allows naivete to set in, and anything contrary to the beliefs of those touting these facts is met with, “You’re just sticking your head in the sand because you don’t want to know the truth.” Why is it that we are reading the same sources you are and coming up with different conclusions? Is it because we are also taking a look at other perspectives as well?
Is there a copy of the “Anti-Chomsky Reader” on your desk? How about “Fahren-hype 911”? (Both marginal examples, but I hope you get my point)
The point is, who here is walking down an ideological line?
Posted at 11:52 am by Logipundit