freedom? democracy? or u.s. global capital interests?
Posted: April 19th, 2012, 6:13 pm
on the following-- agree? disagree? comments? questions?
the u.s. comes down on anyone who doesn't play ball with its global capital interests. that's basically the way it works, with few exceptions. it generally has very little to do with pure ideology, or "freedom and democracy." if that were the case, the u.s. wouldn't support (and even arm) so many totalitarian regimes for such long time periods as it suits the agenda, as it has throughout its history, and it wouldn't run places like guantanamo and bagram and those secret prisons in eastern europe, and it wouldn't send paramilitary riot goons to violently crush peaceful assembly, and it wouldn't pass legislation like the "militarily-detain-and-hold-without-charge" law that obama recently signed.
let's look at some examples:
saddam played ball when he made war on iran in the '80s (our rebellious petro-client state), and then he didn't play ball-- and a few years later, no more saddam.
bin laden played ball when he made holy war against the russians, and then he and his cohorts turned on the other meddling superpower (us)-- and a few years later, no more bin laden (although bush & co. apparently preferred to leave him at large, lurking, issuing threats, lest we lose our zeal for the "war on terror").
noriega played ball-- great. then, noriega didn't play ball-- no more noriega.
when gaddhafi re-opened libyan oil to the west (and "renounced terrorism"), things suddenly got cozy, and the west even sent him some toys. still, he had that bothersome track record, and when he talked about hiking oil lease terms (supposedly to help pay for lockerbie reparations-- though we now have doubts as to libya's guilt), france and italy were not amused, and france in particular was reconnoitering prospects for regime change in 2010, even before the "arab spring," a phenomenon which gave the rest of nato a perfect chance jump in and get rid of the guy once and for all.
batista, the despot, played ball with u.s. interests in cuba, and got military and economic support. castro, the despot, did not play ball with said interests, and got military attack and economic sanctions-- for over fifty years!
karzai's regime in afghanistan plays ball (well, just enough, at least) with the interests, so it gets propped up, despite the fact that it has legislated some sharia aspects of "women as property" into law, and despite widespread torture in afghan prisons and unimaginable corruption and theft of western support resources.
hugo chavez does not play ball with the interests, and guess what? there are some who claim a cia coup attempt was made in 2002, although i'm not sure if this has ever been confirmed. certainly would fit the pattern however.
and we do see a pattern here, right?
meanwhile, saudi arabia plays ball, and is a valuable ally, despite an atrocious human rights record. same goes for egypt-- well, mubarak's egypt, at least.
bahrain is a totalitarian state-- one which received personal congrats from the u.s. secretary of defense after violently crushing its own "arab spring" demonstrations. because bahrain plays ball with the interests.
even iran, when it played ball under the despotic shah, was just fine with us, despite the abuses.
in chile, the democratically- elected allende didn't play ball, and he had to be taken out. but the brutal pinochet played ball, so he was just fine with us.
the list goes on. you get the idea. and all of these authoritarian, totalitarian-type states that are on our side--- we certainly don't seem too paranoid and endlessly vindictive about them, do we? ....
and yes, i'm aware that the usual standby response to all of these troublesome observations (and more) would of course be one long, giant "ends will justify all of these means" ....
interesting and pertinent comment i read yesterday: it remains to be seen just how this "arab spring" movement, should it continue to grow, will be able to coexist with the western drive for dominant influence in the middle east.
the u.s. comes down on anyone who doesn't play ball with its global capital interests. that's basically the way it works, with few exceptions. it generally has very little to do with pure ideology, or "freedom and democracy." if that were the case, the u.s. wouldn't support (and even arm) so many totalitarian regimes for such long time periods as it suits the agenda, as it has throughout its history, and it wouldn't run places like guantanamo and bagram and those secret prisons in eastern europe, and it wouldn't send paramilitary riot goons to violently crush peaceful assembly, and it wouldn't pass legislation like the "militarily-detain-and-hold-without-charge" law that obama recently signed.
let's look at some examples:
saddam played ball when he made war on iran in the '80s (our rebellious petro-client state), and then he didn't play ball-- and a few years later, no more saddam.
bin laden played ball when he made holy war against the russians, and then he and his cohorts turned on the other meddling superpower (us)-- and a few years later, no more bin laden (although bush & co. apparently preferred to leave him at large, lurking, issuing threats, lest we lose our zeal for the "war on terror").
noriega played ball-- great. then, noriega didn't play ball-- no more noriega.
when gaddhafi re-opened libyan oil to the west (and "renounced terrorism"), things suddenly got cozy, and the west even sent him some toys. still, he had that bothersome track record, and when he talked about hiking oil lease terms (supposedly to help pay for lockerbie reparations-- though we now have doubts as to libya's guilt), france and italy were not amused, and france in particular was reconnoitering prospects for regime change in 2010, even before the "arab spring," a phenomenon which gave the rest of nato a perfect chance jump in and get rid of the guy once and for all.
batista, the despot, played ball with u.s. interests in cuba, and got military and economic support. castro, the despot, did not play ball with said interests, and got military attack and economic sanctions-- for over fifty years!
karzai's regime in afghanistan plays ball (well, just enough, at least) with the interests, so it gets propped up, despite the fact that it has legislated some sharia aspects of "women as property" into law, and despite widespread torture in afghan prisons and unimaginable corruption and theft of western support resources.
hugo chavez does not play ball with the interests, and guess what? there are some who claim a cia coup attempt was made in 2002, although i'm not sure if this has ever been confirmed. certainly would fit the pattern however.
and we do see a pattern here, right?
meanwhile, saudi arabia plays ball, and is a valuable ally, despite an atrocious human rights record. same goes for egypt-- well, mubarak's egypt, at least.
bahrain is a totalitarian state-- one which received personal congrats from the u.s. secretary of defense after violently crushing its own "arab spring" demonstrations. because bahrain plays ball with the interests.
even iran, when it played ball under the despotic shah, was just fine with us, despite the abuses.
in chile, the democratically- elected allende didn't play ball, and he had to be taken out. but the brutal pinochet played ball, so he was just fine with us.
the list goes on. you get the idea. and all of these authoritarian, totalitarian-type states that are on our side--- we certainly don't seem too paranoid and endlessly vindictive about them, do we? ....
and yes, i'm aware that the usual standby response to all of these troublesome observations (and more) would of course be one long, giant "ends will justify all of these means" ....
interesting and pertinent comment i read yesterday: it remains to be seen just how this "arab spring" movement, should it continue to grow, will be able to coexist with the western drive for dominant influence in the middle east.
)
