You may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has done ever since the Truman Doctrine. Samuel Huntington
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken
The Middle East is a vivid example, however, of a region in which, even as East-West tensions diminish, American strategic concerns remain . Threats to our interests—including the security of Israel and moderate Arab states as well as the free flow of oil come from a variety of sources. In the 1980s, our military engagements—in Lebanon in 1983-84, Libya in 1986, and the Persian Gulf in 1987-88—were in response to threats to U .S . interests that could not be laid at the Kremlin's door. The necessity to defend our interests will continue. National Security Strategy of the United States - 1990
a Communist-dominated government in Guatemala is only 700 miles from Texas--only 960 miles, or a few hours' bomber time, from the refiners, the chemical plants, and the homes of my own Second District in Texas. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas
WASHINGTON — With a critical congressional vote just two weeks away, President Reagan escalated his rhetoric Monday in an effort to gain support for his $100-million aid package for the guerrillas fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
With three rebel leaders at his side, Reagan told a group of conservative supporters in the Cabinet Room that defeat for the guerrillas--the so-called contras-- would create "a privileged sanctuary for terrorists and subversives just two days' driving time from Harlingen, Texas." Eleanor Clift writing in the Los Angeles Times, March 04, 1986
I want to provide links to two commentaries related to the Soviet pretext. In this concise summary of Cuban history we learn that while Americans are successfully driven to fear Mexicans don't always go along. JFK enlisted the help of Mexico in resisting Cuba because Cuba was a security threat. The Mexican diplomat replied that he couldn't do that because "If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing"
The second commentary is this long discussion with Chomsky that has too many critical bits of information to summarize. Worth a read.
7 comments:
I cannot really explain why but when I read the following quote it made me laugh
"If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing"
No real point to this comment :-)
Paul
Context here is everything.
At the time Mexico wasn't in a USA (citizens)fuelled Drug war with cartels/gangs.
Kennedy, as did the Mexicans that any hostile action by the Cubans, like a missile launch would be total annihilation of Cuba.
In hard reality Russia was doing the same tactic as the USA, for the same domestic reasons. Showing to the world what it was like having a missile pointed at you, in your neighbor's back yard. Tactically it would have been pointless as this was the TIME of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Sadly the USA, as usual, failed to see the point. Obsessed as it was with it's own interests (importance).
It could, and I would argue that the Whole east/west thing emanated from ONE MAN who had died by then 1953(Stalin). Stalin was a dictator with expansionist ambitions. After his death the mechanism for personal power were set.
In fact Khrushchev was a patriot and he could see the arms war was killing the USSR wanted peace but the old guard (conservatives) didn't hence he was replaced. And it wasn't until the old guard died off and Gorbachev ( the first leader not alive in the 1917 uprising) that common sense could reign.
It is a figment of US wishful thinking to suggest that “Reagan ended the cold war” he was simply there at the right time.
Americans generally didn't don't understand how the Politburo works or their politics.
It had been a war of military expenditure attrition that killed the USSR and the same cause is showing the signs of doing the same with the USA.
The US needs to learn from the past.
Jon,
Well put I used other sources when commenting on Chad's "chumpsky " errors.
To me the US biggest weakness is that the public generally are far too insular in their understanding of the world.
By comparison The average Australian knows more about America than vise versus
Jon,
Here we go again.
Another F..g American Nut with a gun and a grudge
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-13/19-hurt-in-shooting-at-mothers-day-parade/4684852
Examinator,
Lost in all the noise of the latest shooting violence is that gun violence is in fact on the decline. Gun related homicides have dropped from around 18k 10 years ago to around 11k now. Non fatal firearm crimes have dropped from 1.5 Million 10 years ago to less than a third of that today. Still too many, but trending in the exact opposite direction that the media portrays.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-07/politics/39076469_1_gun-show-gun-violence-gun-rights-groups
Jonathon,
I saw that. "Only" 11000 that is the problem ! yes it's better but are you or the Republicans saying it's a an acceptable number of deaths so that some people can have fire arms ?
That's a bit like say the death (god(s)etc forbid) one of Chad's children being killed in a 'shooting accident' is okay because it's better than both!
The point I was making is that the event got very little if any attention! Hesus on a Unicycle it was a major news item in at least 4 other countries.
What does this say about the state of desensitising in the US that 20 INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN BE INJURED IN A SHOOT OUT. It doesn't mention the number caught in this 'shoot out at the mother's day Corral'.
Oh well it was Black on black in a 'violent' area .... that shows the level of The fact that it didn't get the people outraged is an indictment of the lack of human concern that exists in the USA.
it's a neat way for the fringe dwellers to avoid actually looking at WHY:
a. The circumstances that contributed to it being a 'violent area'.
b. Ask yourself what would be the response if the area had been in Your or an up market area.
c. Can we conclude that the innocent people in this area don't matter... um because they're poor or Black?
In truth it's because "good" people do nothing.
Where's the Christian Missionaries or Charity ... brother's keeper stuff?
How about the FACT that they are AMERICANS too? So much for the "Right" ideals
BTW in real definitions right and conservatism means/centers on Patriotism/nationalism. Coming together. Not separate development ...that's the primary feature of Apartheid (racial or financial).
In Australia the Western suburbs of the state capitals tend to be the low financial and subsequently more violence crime prone areas but 20 innocent people injured in a shoot out would lead in every state news. The federal police would be all over it like flies on fresh cow dung.
The difference? the mythical frontiersman, fire arm myth.
Again the whole 'Fire arm culture' being based on the pioneer spirit, ingenuity and 'work hard leads to success' or 'anyone can become the president' just doesn't stand up to examination. It was disease that beat the native American and CHEAP SLAVE labor that underpinned early American success.
Capitalism is based on scarcity to have value. (see De Beers cartel control over the price of diamonds … the truth is they're just not that rare)... it's a collection of pyramidal structures that create the bigger one. In simple terms those who have power money and success decrease in number as to reach the top. In reality 1-10% of the population make it to the top see Peter Singer's undeniable assessment of what is valued and why .
In terms of my comment that certainly excludes the bottom layers of the pyramid.
By the way that isn't Conservatism , Liberalism, Socialism, Christian et al .
What it is is “law of the Jungle” when in truth that doesn't mean the best for mankind certainly not guaranteeing the Homo sapien's survival ...see what happened to the mega fauna and dinosaurs
Examinator,
"Jonathon,
I saw that. "Only" 11000 that is the problem ! yes it's better but are you or the Republicans saying it's a an acceptable number of deaths so that some people can have fire arms ?"
No.
"Where's the Christian Missionaries or Charity ... brother's keeper stuff?
How about the FACT that they are AMERICANS too? So much for the "Right" ideals
BTW in real definitions right and conservatism means/centers on Patriotism/nationalism. Coming together. Not separate development ...that's the primary feature of Apartheid (racial or financial)."
I am just simply pointing out the disconnect between reality and the news.
The real injustice here is that no one is talking about any real or meaningful solutions, but simply offering window dressing that will make us feel better but in the end do nothing. Republicans suggesting armed guards at schools, but the vast majority of shootings do not occur in schools. Arming even more people is not going to fix the problem either. Democrats are trying to ban assault rifles, but my some estimates 2% of all gun violence is due to these type of weapons. Even the most successful gun buyback program will lead to the reduction of homicides by a fraction of one based on economists. "the likelihood that a particular gun was used to kill someone .... 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buyback program yields fewer than 1,000 guns - which translates into an expectation of less than one-tenth of one homicide per buyback." (p 133 Freakonomics.)
So how about some outrage on both sides of the political isle? Instead of wasting our time and spending all our political capital on pushing for programs which will make people feel better and do nothing, how about an honest discussion on things that would or would not help?
No one is talking about the approximately 300 Million handguns already out there. If you want to impact the number of deaths and violence due to guns in the US, the discussion should focus on this problem.
I know it's going to be shocking to hear, as you've assumed I'm in a particular camp when it comes to guns, but the handgun problem can probably only be addressed effectively through social or government initiated programs which address root social issues regarding mental health, poverty, etc. Yet the media nor the government want to talk about solutions like this because it will not score political points or viewership ratings. It's more sexy to show pictures of assault rifles or NRA rallies.
Post a Comment