Protest like an Egyptian

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Lessons from Egypt

Barack Obama is the probably the best possible President the United States could have, but all of his genuinely good qualities don't make a damned bit of difference in terms of U.S. foreign policy. There is a very simple reason for this: He's not the boss. The real boss, of course, is all of that fucking money, all of the profits to be made, and which have to be made because that is the criteria according to which corporations — and hence the U.S. economy itself — lives or dies. Profit must be made, and it is not made exclusively, or even primarily within the U.S. but outside of it, all over the world. That is the necessity that governs U.S. foreign policy. Not morality, not justice, and not Obama. In that sphere he, like any other President, more closely resembles Stepin Fetchit. Thomas Dow, via email.

It's been getting harder and harder for anyone in the Western world to pretend we live in a genuinely democratic society. Ironically — but also tellingly — our rulers have felt in ever-less necessary to hide the fact that they hold "the people" in contempt, just as they hold in contempt the idea of democracy itself.

As a Canadian, last summer's government-sponsored riots in Toronto (see "Dominion of Fear" from last July) tore a lot of the proverbial wool from my eyes, but not all of it. I think it Tony Blair's calmy racist para-logical contortions in support of anything but democracy for the Egyptian people to bring home to me the fact our own democracy is little (if anything) more than a potempkin voting booth.

Which prompted the following, an editorial first published in this past Friday's True North Perspective. Long story short, there are two lessions for those of us in the West to learn from the courageous men and women facing down the thugs in the streets of Egypt.

First, it's not our place to manage Egyptian affairs. Even if we accept the myth of Good Intentions, the result is almost always a torturer like Mubarak.

And second, we need to take back our own democracy; the men in black body armor are at the ready any time we step out of line.

Click here for the rest (behind the fake cut).

Comments

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You may want to read the forum rules if you don't want this to be deleted soon.

It's got a thesis, baby ...

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

As per the subject line, I've got a thesis (well, two, if you're counting) for debate and personal opinions (also up for debate) coming out every one of my orifices.

If you've got a specific objections, maybe you should say so.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I can't necessarily force the issue, but placing the full post here as opposed to half of it and expecting us to go to your site for the rest will probably do a lot to keep the focus on your theory as opposed to your choice on posting.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I understand why you don't like the way I've done it, but frankly, a lot of posts here are just brief responses to a third party's analysis of this, that or the other thing. At least I'm posting a link to original work, whatever you might think of its merits.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you want the rest of us to miss the plot, that's your call, then.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I believe this is his own writing, and nothing in the rules prohibits cross-posting, AFAIK.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

There's a rule that prohibits spam. Putting half a post, then forcing people to go to your website to finish reading it is spam IMHO. Not to mention that his own site has advertising on it, so it could be argued that this hasn't been posted for the benefit of the community and discussion, but to get people to go to their site, hence getting their site views up, resulting in money to the OP.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. I didn't visit the site, myself. And even if I did, AdBlock.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"Profit must be made"

- OP

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

See, the problem with this is that support of brutal regimes for strategic end has been the Great Power practice with Egypt since the 1880s. Even in the age of trans-oceanic air travel the Suez Canal is too vital a trade route for the Great Powers to take their chances with democratic governments in Egypt. Of course like most peoples with an ounce of self-respect the Egyptians hate this and the governments that sponsor it......

Colour me romantic

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

See, the problem with this is that support of brutal regimes for strategic end has been the Great Power practice with Egypt since the 1880s.

Of course, I know that. For whatever it's worth, I'm trying to do my little bit to convince others that we need to hold our "leaders" up to our own self-proclaimed ideals.

It's time to stop asking ourselves whether "the Arabs" are ready for democracy and to start asking ourselves whether we are.

Call me cynical:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But when all the New World societies are built on genocide and the liberal democracies used genocidal means in those empires to get themselves to be the richest countries in the world my answer to that is a "No, we very much are not willing to be truly democratic." The mindset that led the Great Powers to do what they did very much can be turned on the people at home. Only idiots fail to recognize that possibility.

Re: Call me cynical:

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Only idiots fail to recognize that possibility.

And that's how you make friends and influence people. We agree with each other. Why do you go to such efforts to make me your enemy?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So edgy.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

There are some who would want the US to mind it's own business, and not meddle in the affairs of other countries.

There are some who would want the US to pick a side; meddle, support or condemn those ruling or aspiring to rule.

Crazy as it sounds, those 2 groups overlap - full of hypocrites.

Very few can honestly say they want the US to be consistent.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I disagree. They're not hypocrits or inconsistent, they're just confused.

Most people who would prefer the U.S. just kept out of it, is because the history of U.S. foreign interference is a history of deliberate oppression and the suppression of self-determination, in order to secure and advance U.S. domestic prosperity.

The same people also recognize that the U.S. has the ability to help give people self-determination and free them from oppression, and you will often hear them express the desire that the U.S. would do so.

Unfortunately they are confused by both rhetoric coming from U.S. leadership which indicates that the U.S. has the intention of doing so, and from an almost entirely false historical narratives which deceives them into thinking the U.S. is naturally (and uniquely) inclined to work to those ends.

They all want the same thing, for people around the world to have self-determination and freedom from oppression, but they fluctuate between recognizing that the U.S. is never going to assist that cause and bearing a false hope that it will.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

but they fluctuate between recognizing that the U.S. is never going to assist that cause and bearing a false hope that it will.

the U.S. has assisted that cause in the past, and i have no doubt that it will do more of it in the future.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Indeed it has on a few specific occasions, which are in large part memorable for that reason.

I'm sure it will do so again in future (when it happens to co-incide with U.S. domestic prosperity), but in the meantime, there will continue to be dozens of cases where it does the exact opposite, because that is almost always more profitable.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If this is a reference to Germany and Japan those were very special circumstances. The Occupation of Japan is IMHO the only redeeming side to MacArthur's military career as there's nobody else in the US High Command who could have done what he did there. With Germany the US was only one of three occupying powers in the West and part of Berlin, and was not the full guarantor until the 1950s. And by the 1950s the Warsaw Pact did wonders to ensure the Germans weren't inclined to try to rehabilitate Hitler.

In both defeated Axis powers the de-Axification did not go nearly as far as it should. It was never to the extent as in Austria where a full-fledged war criminal held a major political position, but it was not near enough to what it should have been (of course Soviet East Germany wasn't that much of an improvement either but then the Soviets were already totalitarian so it was simply co-opting existing networks).

Ignoring the role that fear of the Soviet Union played in the recreation of Germany and Japan after WWII ignores a big part of what made those recreations as successful as they were. Fear, like foreknowledge of being hanged in a fortnight, concentrates the mind wonderfully on the task at hand.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"the U.S. has the ability to help give people self-determination and free them from oppression"

I don't get this. Self-determination, as I understand it, is a country's ability to operate free from outside influences. If the US frees people from oppression, assuming the oppression is domestic as is usually the case, it is not respecting their sovereignty. Likewise, if the US respects a country's sovereignty, respecting their self-determination, it should work with its recognized government.

I don't see that the US can provide both. Either we interfere and promote our values or we don't try to force our values on others. There are of course those who will criticize the US either way, they are referred to as the peanut gallery.

You're right not to get it

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I don't get this. Self-determination, as I understand it, is a country's ability to operate free from outside influences.

I think you don't get it because it doesn't make any sense. mrsilence is attacking straw men he doesn't bother to even name, thus making his point impervious to counter-attack.

In my opinion, the U.S. could in theory be a force for good in the modern world, but mostly by putting a halt to active support for despots, and equally, by putting a halt to demonizing those countries which don't do Washington's bidding. A very strong case could be (and has been, by others) made for the idea that Iran's mullah's would have fallen a long time ago if they couldn't point to U.S. hostility towards Iran (not to mention two and a half neighbouring countries invaded and occupied over the past decade or so) as a reason for carrying on.

The Straw Man Cometh

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Very good. If I were teaching a first year philosophy class, I'd use this as a magnificent example of a straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Note that (a) I didn't say any of the things you "refute" and (b) you don't identify anyone who does hold the contradictory positions you so manfully challenge.

Also, you get bonus points for throwing in an irrelevant ad hominem insult ("hypocrites", in case that's not perfectly obvious) for good measure.

But good show, sir, good show! You've certainly given "they" and "some" and "them" — those hypocrites! — a well-deserved thrashing!

MANFULLY COMMENT! RARR!

[oportet.livejournal.com]

You're saying the people I refer to don't exist?

Re: MANFULLY COMMENT! RARR!

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that if you're going to attack something or someone, it's helpful if you point to specific examples. Otherwise, your words are nothing but distracting wind, not arguments.

Try this: Tell us who you're talking about, provide a direct quote from them to back up what you say "they" have said, and then explain how it relates to the original post.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

This is what I think,

I think that we should get along. I have more opinions here (http://cgi.ebay.com/BERNHARDT-MARTHA-STEWART-ARMOIRE-WARDROBE-/160539934276?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2560ecfe44#ht_1324wt_907).