Blogcritics: Comments on Fed Up...

Comment by taliesin

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 04:09:32 EDT

Among bits that made me smile: "I suggest burning the editors of the National Review at the stake. That would be fun to watch" (Mike). N'est-ce pas? While Eric's right with his "it's not like we were appreciated", that's as over-easy as it's true. Really want me to spend a morning writing down all the things foreigners still like and admire in American culture? Let's also distinguish, of course, between that heterogeneous mish-mash and some of the administrations your often incomprehensible voting system foists on us all from time to time. ;) The Diva jumped on to one of my own hobby horses by bringing the United Nations into it. That's a key point. If this century is going to be remotely better (read: "safer"?) than the last, Washington really has to decide once and for all -- with the "help" of the people who put the mad crew in power there -- whether it's ready to work with that flawed but essential organisation. Or whether it's going to treat it as a tool to be blithely ignored, or coerced, if its own policies don't happen to be the ones that a major paymaster thinks it ought to promote.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:54:07 EDT

It is rare to hear an isolationist voice in this debate. I would appreciate it if Mike would write an entry explaining his position. I am curious about how he reached it. Does he totally agree with Virginia or are there differences? For example, is his isolationism limited to foreign policy or does he agree with her that the U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket, too? Al, it sure looks like the U.S. is in Iraq for the same reasons you say the Soviets were in Afghanistan. The winners of this 'war' will be Haliburton and other Bush cronies, not the American or the Iraqi people. My take? I support neither 'the world's policeman' nor isolationism. As a humanist, I know that interventions from other governments in a country are sometimes needed. The question is: When? Can we establish some basic rules for intervention of the U.S. and/or the U.N.? I don't believe this invasion would be acceptable under reasonable rules of engagement.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:20:27 EDT

Totally different from the Soviets, Mike. The Soviets went into Afghanistan for conquest, to rule over the country. On the other hand, we're in Afghanistan because their people were directly attacking us on our home soil. Thousands of our people were killed. Al Qaeda/The Taliban had to be knocked down before more of our people got killed. Had to be. Reality is messy, and we're still trying to keep Afghanistan on the right path. The fact that it's difficult and imperfect does not mean it wasn't necessary.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:15:58 EDT

"Better to fight Arab militants in the Middle East than the Middle West." Tell the families of the the people who've been killed in Iraq that the "flypaper" strategy is a good one. While we can't isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, there was no pressing threat from Iraq and Arab militants couldn't have reached the Middle West killings hundreds of people. Yes Hussein was horrible, but he was just as horrible when Reagan and Bush supported him.

Comment by mike

Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:24:56 EDT

Al: You sound exactly like a Soviet commissar circa 1980. They were fighting Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Georgia too, remember? Hell, the Soviets damn near CREATED Islamist extremism with their repressive policies towards Muslims. "Those" people were savages who had to be dragged kicking or screaming into the modern world, or killed. The Soviet Union was going to invade their territories and convert them to its idea of modernism. Sound familiar? It didn't work for the Soviet Union and it's not going to work for us. Unless the U.S. adopts a more enlightened, less militaristic approach, it's going to end up like the USSR. Our media is already servile and sovietized, so we're halfway there. It's probably too late.

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:15:46 EDT

I'm sympathetic to wanting to stay out of other country's affairs, but the problem is that our security is at stake now post 9-11. I hate that our soldiers are getting killed, even though it's just a few. It's not something that can be avoided, though. There are people trying to kill us. We have to fight them over there or over here. Better to fight Arab militants in the Middle East than the Middle West.

Comment by mike

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:24:09 EDT

"The one indisputable fact" about 9/11 is that messing around in places we're not invited, such as we and the Soviets did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, will have unforseen and unforseeable, but exceedingly violent, outcomes. Just ask the Soviets--oh, they're not around anymore. Interesting. Must just be a coincidence.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:01:46 EDT

This would mean rather expressly ignoring the one indesputable fact rammed home by 9/11 - see above.

Comment by mike

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:27:14 EDT

There's no reason why the Middle East's problems should be our problems. I don't care about Israel. I don't care about Palestine. I don't care about Iraq. If we stayed out of other's people's business, we wouldn't have to spend so much money "protecting" our borders against the lunatics we aggravate and sometimes fund. As the example of Iraq shows, some people just don't want to be liberated. To heck with them. I have better things to worry about. Democracy begins at home. The Constitution says that the purpose of the military is to "provide for the common defense." Period. We are fighting against a guerilla war in Iraq. The first rule of guerilla warfare is that if you don't lose, you win. As long as there is one insurgent with a rocket launcher, the guerillas in Iraq can't lose. So they have already won. Time to declare defeat, get the heck out of there, and begin purging the War Party from the government. I suggest burning the editors of the National Review at the stake. That would be fun to watch.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:46:32 EDT

Vic, always nice to hear from you. As much as I sympathize with the "let the rest of the fucking world take care of itself" mentality - after all, it's not like we're appreciated - the one thing we were forced to learn by 9/11 is that there is no such thing as borders anymore and the world's problems are our problems. It's the old (maybe too old for many) Fram oil filter commercial: "pay me now or pay me later."

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:42:10 EDT

I, on the other hand, LOVE a good political rant. Bring us more, Ms Whore. As literary critique, you lost focus halfway through. You started out with a strong point on Middle East policy, however much one buys the specific arguments. Starting with "in the meantime," though, you wandered off into a little bit of a lot of things, and thus ended up not saying much substantive about any of them. Try cutting more bite size pieces. For example, People fail to believe that there has been the slow decline of the US because we are still stuck in our "WWII, we are the champions with a car in every garage and a TV in every living room". This could be the start of an interesting whole new essay.

Comment by taliesin

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:32:49 EDT

Well! I don't agree with you, but I'm glad you wrote that and published it. :) Of the many reasons I can't go along with a good rant I understand, two top the list: - for better or worse, the only superpower left has appointed itself "global policeman". Thus, your country (and its allies) take the shit, as well as the admittedly often faint praise; - one of the worst things Americans could do, despite your gut feelings about the Mideast and interminable conflicts, is opt once more for "splendid isolation". Even were this possible in today's world -- which it isn't -- I'd argue that it would be bad for the United States. And just as bad for the rest of us.

Comment by TDavid

Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:55:49 EDT

Yowsa, a political rant -- something I usually try to steer clear of because it's so subjective. Therefore, I'll be brief. I think we are in a Catch-22 in Iraq. We can't really just pull out and leave the country to fall apart after we went in and kicked ass looking for the (phantom?) Weapons of Mass Destruction. The rest of the world is looking on -- both allies and non-allies -- as to whether we were trying to do something humanitarian -- or something to simply advance our own perceived Super Power agenda. I don't buy into the hype that the US is evil, but we have don't have clean hands in foreign policy. In the meantime we're over there trying (?) to help them rebuild things, and yet not get in the way of letting them build their own style of government (?) and at the same time protect from terrorist attacks (?) and ... well, we can all see we have too many objectives. Some of those objectives directly conflict with each other :( If any decent democratic candidate (and no, not Lieberman) runs against Bush, he won't make it for a second term.