Patriotism, and Its Acts

[e_dog]

A few weeks ago, the American mediatized public celebrated Independence Day, in commemoration of the war of independence from the British Empire. Of course the occasion was (ab)used as an opportunity to disseminate pro-war propaganda and thus consolidate support for American imperial policies. However, if one thinks seriously about the American Revolution, it is doubtful that it can be seen as support for imperialism. Indeed, the true analogy to the present course of events would seem to be as follows:
the British troops of the late 18th century are analogous to the present-day U.S. forces; the Iraqi insurgents of today play the role of the American patriots of the revolutionary period; Al Queda, if indeed they have a presence in Iraq, is like ... France (?), while the Iraqi 'army' and police are like the Loyalists (loyal to the British crown) during the American Revolution. the tactics of war have changed, along with the technologies and ideologies used, but the dynamics are similar.

This is not a pretty picture but it is one that any student of history and politics should take seriously. At any rate, it shows the hopelessly foolish nature of clothing imperial ventures in patriotic garb.

Moreover, its puts the nature of the insurgency in perspective. Rather than assuming that these men 'hate freedom and democracy' it is more plausible to assume that they hate foreign invaders. A U.S General on a major news network recently said that in 'hindsight' we can see that the insurgency is formidable but that in the early days o the invasion it was reasonable to think we could brush them aside without too much trouble. But anyone who isn't braindead knows that when an outside force invades or occupies a territory that some group claims as its homeland, there is going to be a resistance movement.

[mtmynd]

e-dog... altho I may agree in part with your assessment of the present day situation I cannot agree with your analogy of the Brits and the American revolutionaries if only because Britain had no necessity to claim the oil which was lying beneath the lands of America. We may all respond with a big "No shit!" on that sentence, but given a wee bit more thought "How in the hell did the human race exist for thousands and thousands of years prior to these present days of extreme oil dependency?" Will civilization as we know it collapse without oil? Or will our so-called advances in intelligence allow us to pull the plug on oil? This remains to be seen as it is indeed the most important question that should be at the heart and soul of everyone responsible for the welfare of their citizens, for if it isn't then those that claim political responsibility should step down and allow those that have answers to step up to the podiums of nations and call for the future to be a viability and not simply a clouded, shrouded, carbon dioxide poisoned nightmare.

[mnaz]

Good post. I pretty much agree.

The Iraq misadventure indeed has a heavy imperialistic aspect, despite how Bush & Co. has tried to wrap it up in the flag and freedom and humanism. Originally, the Bushites planned to seize Iraq's public infrastructure and auction it off to US corporations, until they were forced to back down from that rather overt land and resource grab, which is illegal under international law.

The Iraq invasion and occupation was born of considerable self-serving deception, and the whole thing has an unmistakable degree of hypocrisy. Is this invasion really all that different than the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979? Oh sure, the Soviets sought a more undisguised direct rule over the Afghans, whereas the US would allow Iraq to have a "democracy". But it would be a client democracy on a fairly short leash.

Like Bush and the WMD lie, Brezhnev also claimed that controlling Afghanistan was essential to bolster the security of USSR states bordering the Middle East, in the wake of the Iranian Islamic revolution.

It is true that enemies of the US are using terrorist tactics in Iraq. Should this come as any surprise? Did we label the CIA-sponsored jihadists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan as "terrorists"? No. They were termed "freedom fighters", and the like.

The people of the Middle East and the world are not stupid. They recognize veiled imperialistic intent and hypocrisy when they see it. Any venture founded on such a questionable foundation is doomed to failure, or at least a prolonged uphill struggle, in my opinion.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Remember US "interests" and ambitions in Chile? (1973-)

(link)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico ... _1973.html