People are slowly waking up.

It takes genuine hard work to fight propaganda-driven agendas, but I sense a small amount of momentum gaining in isolating US foreign policy as the problem, and not the solution.

Scott Ritter echoes many of my previous blogs with his 3 minute monologue.

Go Scott Go !
Tagged on:

4 thoughts on “Go Scott Go !

  • I actually followed Mr. Ritter’s monologue until the very end when he carefully treaded the line: “Hezbollah is not a terrorist group…that threatens the United States.”

    I agree with him on one principle: that US foreign policy should never be decided on the needs of or benefits to a foreign entity. But he certainly doesn’t answer the question (and I have no idea of the context of this monologue) of whether U.S. and Israeli interests are or are not indeed aligned against Hezbollah.

    He’s not a lone voice in his criticism of Israel or AIPAC (he obviously has a very friendly audience that apparently haven’t been sufficiently brainwashed).

    It sounds appealing to say that Hezbollah is not a direct threat to the U.S. but it is a fair question to ask whether Israel’s existence is a positive for the U.S. or not, and whether a threat to them might be a threat to U.S. interests.

    Beyond a complete isolationist view that we should have NO Middle East interests at all, Israeli and U.S. interests will very often be synonymous. And in the case of Hezbollah, and indeed Israel’s original attack on Lebanon it’s possible that American interests are aligned with Israels.

    Hezbollah is absolutely a terrorist group, and I believe that AIPAC’s contentions–a) that Israel’s existence is threatened by them and b) that Israeli’s existence as a lone Democratic ally in the Middle East serves U.S. interests–are valid.

    He made a great point about AIPAC needing to be considered a foreign advocate and not an American lobby group. On that I certainly agree. What are the practical differences? Are there different levels of access? Fundraising or tax implications? Not familiar with what the practical difference would be.

  • good comments butch, but a few points i must make.

    perhaps the audience emerged from a brainwashed state, first of all.

    in the background the letter NAT appeared. presumably the interview was carried by the NATION, which is leftist, and there will certainly be academics represented in the audience. my experience in discussing IP with academics is that most of the time they see through the smokescreens and make conclusions based on the data, and thus are critical of israel.

    ive talked with sociologists at bars, jazz professors on the golf course, math professors who have been conservatives their whole lives, and when i discuss IP with them, they think like me for the most part.

    so i was not surprised by the audience being receptive of ritter’s points.

    i read his book “endgame” and i am interested in reading his new book on iran.

    ritter was correct in saying that hezbollah is an israeli problem, not an american one. israel started the first war in lebanon, and you would be hard-pressed to find a credible counter-claim. israel blamed the plo for forcing their hand, but israel invaded. they occupied for 2 decades. cause and effect should not be reversed ; the problems israel has currently are problems born of their disastrous policies ; no invasion and occupation of lebanon ( in which the UN voted so many times in condemnation of but these condemnations were effectively wiped out by the US SC veto), no hezbollah. to suggest that hezbollah is a US problem shifts the blame from the instigating party, israel.

    now i agree with you that many times the US interest and israeli interest are one in the same. the point he made, with which i agree completely, is that pro-israel ideologues try to paint the picture that the two interests are always blended together as one, a point i have likewise observed. ritter makes the point that maybe that should not be the case, in fact hinting at walt and mearsheimer’s conclusions, namely that the alliance between the US and israel has indeed made the US less safe and its image in the world spiral downward.

    it would be hard to argue against this point i think.

    no one argues that hezbollah is not a terrorist group.

    but using the same criteria, do you think the various historical actions of the CIA are demonstrative of their involvement in similar terrorist activity?

  • Maybe, but even the most anti-CIA list of CIA atrocities does not list direct terrorist actions by the CIA, but instead, “They toppled this dictator and look what popped up in his place–a much worse dictator!”

    And let’s face it, the CIA, evil terrorist organization or not, hasn’t been a real effective organization on any front (collecting intelligence, toppling regimes, or otherwise) in almost 20 years.

    This is why I couldn’t agree that the CIA is a terrorist organization. You can say it is an international espionage organization, but lately, a decidedly ineffective one.

  • ok, operation mongoose, conducted out of miami’s south campus, enlisted more than 2000 operatives

    mission: destroy Cuba’s infrastructure

    operation mongoose was responsible for bombings of factories, ships in Havana’s harbor, etc

    in nicaragua, the US was found guilty in 1986 of violating international law, meaning it conducted terrorist activity

    it mined nicaragua’s main harbor, it funded the contra cause which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent nicaraguan peasants

    the CIA led the overthrow of guatemala’s arbenz guzman in 1954, mossadegh in iran in 1953, the allende coup in 1973 in chile

    the CIA has had its hands in haiti, dom rep, panama, bolivia, and these examples are confined to the western hemisphere

    i feel that the backlash we are seeing now in south and central america is directly tied to US intervention in the last 50 years

    i am not discussing the intelligence role of the CIA, butch, but its clandestine operations that the entire world, mod the US, views as terrorist in nature

    another ugly double-standard rears its hideous head

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *