Bowling for Columbine

[MJ]

Vava,

 

Why would one want to be cynical? Is that a quality that we should be proud of? Actually, I would characterize the sentiments that I sort of am very resentful of as Vulgar Marxism (not necessarily in the scientific sense of that term, but worse.) And may I ask, what do you believe in, at all?

 

I do sure put my trust in certain materials and not in others. It is not something that I am going to apologize for. Contrary to some, I would never talk, at least publicly, about something that I don’t know enough about. Would you agree that, in general, it would be prudent to not talk about things that one does not know enough about? Or perhaps it is OK to talk even about such things once in a while, but when it becomes a daily pattern, or when it becomes a device of discharging one’s personal discomfort with his/her personal life, when it disseminates toxicity, it is something, sooner or later to feel “enough is enough” about?

 

I do agree that some of the “Hitler's propaganda also 'made sense' to many people” - actually to some of the most educated and intelligent people and to one of the most outstanding nations. That is what I am concerned about and that is an issue that I am trying to address here. Let me ask, why would you never be “cynical” on the other side of the fence? (Don’t take this personal. In my view, you are one of the few reasonable guys “on your side of the fence,” here.)

 

I also agree with you on relying on multiple resources and I highly encourage it. Do you read the resources which convey the other side of the issue? Do you have a feeling that the “armchair paleontologists” of the forum do it? Have you analyzed/studied, as you advocated in your previous material, the policies and the issues which are subject to heated emotional outbursts? Could you give a couple of examples for the sake of clarity?

 

You also talk about the “mainstream” media, as if, by in large, it is conveying a different point of view than what you are trying to. From the tabloid trash to mainstream media, such as BBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc, with a couple of exceptions, such as FoxNews, every mainstream outlet of media is conveying “analysis” of the type that you attribute to the “alternative” media. Therefore, I think what you say is just bizarre. Additionally, every single person speaking up in this forum conveys the same underlying theme (OK, maybe there are one or two exceptions), which you would call “alternative.” I would claim that, for this forum and the mainstream media, in fatc, what I convey is the “alternative” opinion.

 

I have no interest in unleashing propaganda campaign here - first of all, because this place is irrelevant from the perspective of unleashing propaganda. I speak up only once in a while – as I said earlier, when I feel enough is enough.

 

BTW, “Jacques Iraq” is not a nick name coined by me. He has been coined so for decades, now.

 

If you really want to have an argument or discussion, to learn things or to teach others, I would highly appreciate it and welcome, and I would be very respectful to your opinions as far as I don’t get a perception that you are arguing for the sake of the argument, to assert your ego, to engage in demagoguery, to sound “smart,” etc. And if I get that perception, most of the time, the you would not get response from me at all, or when “enough is enough,” I will respond appropriately. I don’t mean that you, personally, behave inappropriately. In fact, you have pretty reasonable posture, as I have said before. And when someone follows your example, I would respectfully address him/her, too. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the “worriers” of this forum or many other activists outside it.

 

So, because of your tone of discussion, let me address your comments, specifically.

 

I truly believe that US has conducted itself in a maximally prudent manner. US is not in a position to “copycat” Canada. Canada has never attempted or resolved any international conflicts, because she (and not only she) knows that the US is there to do it for her. There is none that US may rely on. It is the most powerful country, it is the richest country, and when something is wrong anywhere, every one asks US to step in. The Balkans is the perfect example. Being a European problem by its scope and character, Europeans did not want to resolve it (though some of them had instigated it). They declared that they “didn’t have the capacity to solve the problem without the US.” Maybe they indeed could not, since they did not want to spend on building military might, nor were ready to incur the human cost.

 

You are asking why not to wait for the inspectors. It is simple. Inspectors have been in Iraq for a decade. UN has passed 17 resolutions, since, demanding disarmament and compliance. Iraq has not complied. Until December 2002, it did not even let the inspectors in. When the US sent its army and the fleet to the region, then it let the inspectors in. Then, they started to play “cat and mouse,” each time yielding one more step, when the US would increase the military pressure. Guess what, if we expect that in a year or so, the inspectors are going to register progress, which I am sure would have never happened, because they are not in a position to find the hidden weaponry (they are not detectives), that meant the US was supposed to incur the cost of it for a questionable outcome. Inspectors, normally, verify that the weaponry subject to discussions has indeed been destroyed. This implies full cooperation from the Iraqi side. If the decade of experience and the 17 resolutions were not enough to understand the Iraqi handwriting then I don’t know what was enough. The continuation of the inspection regime, even for the sake of the idle process, would have implied maintenance of the US army in the region for expended periods and multibillion $ expenditures from the US side, which except UK no one was willing to share. But even then, the outcome was highly questionable, as I mentioned.

 

I, personally, would not give a damn for the UN. It is a corrupt and obsolete organization. Syria and Libya are members of the Human Right committee in UN. I think Libya is the chairman, currently. Iraq was scheduled to become the chairman of the disarmament committee last month, I believe. UN has never resolved any serious problem except the humanitarian ones. The Bosnian problem was delegated to UN, the Rwandan problem was delegated to UN, same with Somalia... UN has passed 17 resolutions on Iraq in 10 years, perhaps several resolutions on Cyprus, same on Israel and Palestine, even on Karabagh. If UN cannot impose (for the sake of formality of the conversation) its will on Karabagh, how do you expect it do so on Iraq? It is a body where countries of frequently conflicting interests come together and talk. There is not a single political problem that UN has ever resolved.

 

When NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia, I don’t recall anyone asking for the UN “blessing.” When Clinton occupied Haiti, I don’t recall any polarization of the “anti-war” sentiment. With Iraq, for some “mysterious” reason, the situation is different, and I have a pretty good idea, I think, why.

 

You are also referencing to the “long run safety of the US population.” I disagree with your sentiment in this issue, too. The long run safety of the US population and btw, Canada, with that, should not be left on the mercy of Iraq, Iran, etc. If those who cultivate the hatred, animosity, misery in Middle East and elsewhere, make a strategic decision to deliver the problem to the US shores (this is what Al Qaeda did – it showed a way, sort of declared the opening of the season), US being an open society, cannot defend itself just internally. It has to take the fight where the problems are being incubated, and eliminate the problems which give rise to the climate of terrorism, and not to respond when they arrive in a fatal manner to the US soil.

 

You are saying that, if UN would have authorized the use of force, France and Germany, but not Russia, would have joined. As much as I like you, forgive me, but this is a twisted logic.

 

First of all, UN authorization would have meant authorization from France, Russia and China. This is what UN means - add UK and USA to the list. Anyone who knows a little bit about the core of the problem would know that France was never going to authorize it, because it is the sole country that is benefiting most from the existing situation, and it is behind much of the aggregation of the problem. France didn’t even authorize the first Gulf War. It just refrained from the voting.

 

Russia, despite the unfavorable public opinion inside Russia, would have and did come to the US side – much like in1990. The infamous Evgeniy Primakov even delivered the “kiss of death” to Saddam. But when it became apparent that France was going to veto it no matter what, Russia (and China, and others) decided to take the safer rout – “why to stick your head out,” when the issue was deadlocked anyway?

 

Basically, what you are saying, translates “don’t do it, unless France agrees.” It is not an acceptable logic, moreover, an acceptable international policy, more importantly, an acceptable US policy.

 

“So then according to you, the bleeding heart Republicans are out to save the lives of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry, but I have trouble buying in to that argument,” you ask.

 

I am sorry, but you have misread my argument. I hope it is not deliberately done, otherwise I would start to think that you are also demagoging the issue. I hope not.

 

I have brought an argument about human, or better to say, about the civilian lives. I specifically specified that I don’t insinuate that this was the driving factor behind the US decision. I would like to add a secondary comment: even the Minister of Information of Iraq, the one qualified as Elmo by some, has not claimed more than 700 civilian deaths, so far. There are some here and elsewhere, that claim more than that.

 

I have tried to make an argument based on national security. It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. Half of the Democrats in the US Congress, especially those delegated by the function to define and oversee the US National Security policy, have recognized the inevitability of the war and have given their support for it.

 

About “this coming up suddenly,” again… It didn’t come suddenly. It was going on for 12 years. It accelerated after 9/11. And there was no rush. The US introduced Resolution in September 2002, and waited till March 2003.

 

To respond to your question, here is what we have got to earn from all this, in my view.

 

There will be a representative government in Iraq – it will represent the disenfranchised Kurds, Sheites, and Christians, other than the Sunnies. The economic sanctions against Iraq will be lifted and the life there would slowly get to its normal rout. Iraq will be able to capitalize on the only source of wealth it has – oil. The new Iraqi government will recognize the right of Israel to exist.

 

The US and UK forces will stay in Iraq for a while. Enormous pressure would be brought on Syria so that it stops sponsoring terrorism, stops its attempts of acquiring the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, and recognized Israel’s right to exist.

 

Enormous pressure would be brought on Saudi Arabia to “clean up its act.” It will also recognize the Israeli right to exist. This will be followed by the rest of the Arab world. Enormous pressure would be brought on Iran to help the secular part of the society to take over the process of governance in its hands. Most likely, it would not require military intervention. More than or about 70% of Iranian population is under 30 (my numbers may not be accurate, but reflect the gist of it). There will be variety of methods applied to transform the Iranian society into an open one. Iran will also recognize Israel’s right to exist.

 

Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

 

Enormous pressure will be brought on Israel to “clean its act.” It will be required to help the Palestinians to create a viable state. It will be required to stop the settlement of the occupied territories. There will be a very difficult issue with the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees – the biggest hurdle in the issue - less of so the status of Jerusalem.

 

The North Korean problem would be attacked in multiple ways. The US will make the case to China and Russia that if they don’t bring the necessary pressure on North Korea to denuclearize and demilitarize the Korean peninsula, the US will deploy nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan. If the attempt fails, the US will resolve the problem militarily - together with China and Russia or without them.

 

This is how I see things. This is what I see this administration is trying to get done. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support it - both as someone who loves America and someone who loves Armenia. Much of what I conveyed is crucial for Armenia’s future existence, too.

 

The human cost of all this would be much less than in the opposite case. I can perhaps go into further details, but it is not required, I think.

 

In conclusion, here is what I have to say.

 

I have no problem with the opposite view. After all, as correct as these arguments look to me, things may be more complex and I may be wrong. I can easily tolerate the differing view and, more easily, I can neglect it. But this is when I deal with a person who is sufficiently cultured, and is exercising his/her right of free speech within the framework of the acceptable common norms. I have significant allergy towards the toxic people, the “armchair experts,” ideological “prophets” and activists, Internet worriers (some of the people who I have loved and respected in the past, have turned into such), demagogues, etc. I would enjoy to not engage with them – until enough is enough.

 

In conclusion, would like to convey to you a story. When I have not much work to do and am waiting for my next project, I read. Sometimes I read the materials from other Armenian forums to understand where the popular thought of those Armenians who share it over the Internet is. There is this guy, who would on a daily basis post a small material – his analysis on the world and regional affairs. It is nothing too competent or professional, nor stupid. It was sort of OK and, if not interesting, then at least entertaining. One day he posted a material claiming that “he believes that the international Oil Interests were behind the killings in the Armenian Parliament, few years ago." Since then, I stopped reading his materials – every time I saw his name, I just skept. But he is not a toxic person. It is easy to neglect his materials – especially that his posts were in a forum that I don’t care about.

 

For some stupid reason, I do want to see this forum not contaminated with the toxicity and the trash that some people feel dumping here.

 

 

Jeez, This was a long “essay!”

[vava]

MJ,

 

Wow - indeed that was long! Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury to read, reflect on and respond to your post right now, although I am sure I will have a least a few brief comments Perhaps later this evening I will have the time this requires. For now, the sun is shining, and I have to do my grocery shopping....

 

BTW, and perhaps a little more relevant to the actual title of this thread. Michael Moore has produced a video for the System of a Down single "Boom!". For anyone who is interested, you can see the video HERE.

Or visit Moore's web site

[Azat]

Thanks for the link Vava. I do not listen to System but found the song interesting. I know they have been banned from MTV while the war is going one. That is sad.

[alpha]

What gives US the right to use its might uncontrollably? Just because one is powerful should not go around and threaten world peace, should it? It happened a few times in history. Just in 20th century we have witnessed events like 1939 German invasion of Poland, in 1980 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, just to name a few. After World War II institutions were created which were more or less successful in creating meeting grounds for nations who wanted their complains to be heard and considered. It is as a democratic institution where each nation had one vote in General Assembly. UN is a body for civilize world and in civilized world nations use DIPLOMACY. The international institutions might not have been the perfect bodies, but they kept the world in relative peace and prosperity for the last 50 years.

 

Without international institutions the world will turn to “Wild West”. Uncontrollable use of US might will create armies of helpless people who’ll have no choice but to turn to terrorism. What I am afraid of is USA becoming into another USSR. Another “evil empire” hated throughout the world. There are some astonishing similarities between the two. USSR tried fruitlessly to import Communism by force and by money, but failed. USA is trying to import its brand of democracy to remote parts of the world; to cultures with histories a few times older than US. It’s been done in context of “freeing people”, just like USSR did in its days “in the name of proletariat”. An invading powerful country tries to find a moral ground to oppress weaker nations and tries to name it “liberation”, “democratization”, “freedom”. What is expected from powerful nations is to respect the institutional institutions they helped to create and respect the sovereignty of weaker, less powerful nations. So US, and other world powers should not meddle in internal affairs of other countries, be it Iraq, Syria, Israel, Iran or anybody else. Its an outsider to a region and should let the people that live in the region solve their problems.

 

Terrorism is a result of weakness and people who have no means of fighting a conventional war turn to terrorism. It has some negative connotations; however partisans during the World War II were terrorists too. In pre WW II Palestine, Jewish terrorism was prevalent but nobody condemned it the way they condemn Arab terrorism nowadays. Why should there be double standards. Arab terrorism is a result of their weakness against Israel. If US policy is more even handed there won’t be such a big discrepancy in power between Israel and Arab countries. The human right abuses and genocidal policies of Ariel Sharon are not secrets to anyone. Has anyone besides EU countries expressed their protest? NO. It’s widely known that Israel possesses weapons of mass destructions and nuclear weapons? Has anyone done anything about it? NO. The uncontrollable armament of one neighbor gives the other no choice but to develop its own nuclear arsenal and weapons of mass destructions. It’s for self protection purposes. If Syria develops weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons do you think Israel will keep on occupying Golan Heights. I somewhat doubt that. The mess created in Middle East is a result of involvement of forces not native to a region. Superpowers should just let the people in region find their peace amongst themselves.

[MJ]

Alpha,

 

I assume that you were responding to my previous “essay.”

 

I have several problems with your arguments and their underlying premise. I cannot address all of them but will try to address few of them, though. Addressing all of them would require more time.

 

First of all, your entire note is overly emotional and not well argumented contrary to your other materials.

 

Contrary to you, I think that the US is using its power extremely controllably and with great caution. It appeals to power when there is no way around.

 

If it is not for US, I think there would not be a shred of world peace around, in the current stage. Pretty much every one would be at every one else’s throat outside Europe (Europe already has done it) – larger Arab states will swallow the smaller ones, Turkey ill swallow few neighboring countries, Israel would be swallowed pretty much by whoever happens to be the first to get there, etc. Then, Iran and Turkey will be at each others throat, Pakistan and India will be next, Afghanistan would be added to the mix, China would be compelled to intervene, end so on. If there is one single force in the world which guarantees world peace as much as she can, that is the US.

 

The peace in the world has been threatened way before the founding of USA. In particular, when the nations of Middle East were eliminating each other, the US had not ever crossed the Atlantic or did not even exist. US did not create the problems in this region. If anything, it has frozen the preexisting problems – the problems which had become worse due to Europe’s centuries’ old contribution.

 

The General Assembly of UN is irrelevant in political affairs of the world. It has always been the Security Council which has made the decisions (better to say declarations) when it comes to serious issues – security issues. That’s why it is called Security Council.

 

It is very strange for me that you would talk about democratic institutions, and meanwhile, you would not recognize that contrary to the standards advocated by you, there are only five countries which make the decisions at UN, and any of them may veto the decision made by the other four. Its founding principle is not the democratic principle of majority but consensus. If this is democracy, at least it is a very strange style democracy.

 

Speaking of DIPLOMACY… Unfortunately, Diplomacy with no force to back it up is an idle talk – this is demonstrated by the world history. Even Khrimian Hairik has recognized it more than 150 years ago and has introduced a special terminology - “Tghti shrep” into circulation. Say, why didn’t we solve the Karabagh problem with Diplomacy (not that we didn’t want to), for example? Additionally, the absolute majority of the members of the “democratic” UN, that you advocate, have no idea about democracy. Their respective countries are governed with norms as far from democracy as one may imagine. Their absolute majority has no role or significance in the world affairs. Even if there will be vote on the floor of the General Assembly, its members will vote the way the same five would want – they will divide into groups depending who promises more financial or other aid to them or what their xenophobic hatred dictates.

 

I also find very bizarre that you would implicitly insinuate that when it comes to the international or regional security, Guatemala and China, per se, should have equal voice. In such case, I can assure you that the world would be much more dangerous place – total and really uncontrollable mess.

 

I also think that it is absolutely invalid and uninformed claim, when one says that the International Institutions have kept the world in relative peace, in the last 50 years. The peace in the world has been kept by the existing powers and the parity between them. The international institutions in the last 50 years have been as irrelevant as they have been in the last year, or when they have been during the tenure of the League of Nations.

 

The “Wild West” was not resulted from the absence of the international institutions – far not. It was resulted from the lack of law enforcement by an able party, or by the absence of the able party. I am far from claiming that US has to be the world police. In fact, I don’t think so. Neither it is a role that the US government wants to assume, from what I see. But so that the US is not compelled to do the policing, others have to step up to the plate. The EU, for example, should do its part. Let them live up to that responsibility – proportional to their claims. [if Armenia, fore example,” is going to rely on “international institutions” for her future, then it is time to think of burying her, btw.]

 

People, you refer to, are not helpless because of the “uncontrollable US.” They are helpless because in different corners of the world for different reasons, they cannot build viable economies and have dignified lives. And US is not hated around the world. Even the countries where one may think she is hated (say Iraq)… The US is hated in each country by the fundamentalists or the left of the left wing.

 

USA, in fact, is not trying to import its brand of democracy around the world. This is one of your baseless insinuations. The examples negating your allegation are [West] Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and on and on and on.

 

I also find it to be ridiculous to insinuate that “USA is trying to import its name of proletariat. An invading powerful country tries to find a moral ground to oppress weaker nations and tries to name it “liberation”, “democratization”, “freedom”.”

 

These are nice words from the platforms of SocIntern, but how much relevance do they have?

Who is the US trying to oppress? Show me one case in history, one nation that the US has oppressed so far, and not done the opposite. In the case of Iraq, in particular, this is one of the most oppressed nations in the history of the last 40 years. It is impossible even to oppress it any more than they have already been. In the past, USA has occupied West Germany, Japan, Haiti, etc. Give me one example, when the US has done anything else but built these countries from the shambles, stabilized them, and left.

 

The sovereignty of Iraq is not threatened. (Sorry that I am replying to you in bits. Don’t have a lot of time to build a smooth “essay.”) In fact, her sovereignty is supported by the US. Iraq should be run by the Iraqi people (this is the US and UK position), while France, Russia, Germany, etc, were pushing for a UN run government – thus surrendering Iraq’s sovereignty to UN.

 

The important thing to understand is that in the modern world, the internal affairs of “Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel” are not merely their internal affair. Such a statement may be made about a segregated world outside the technology age. It is absolutely wrong about the world that we live in. Somehow, their and others “internal affairs” have huge impact on the others – such as Armenia, for example, when you can think that there is not even a direct relationship. The transportation routs to Armenia, for example, pass through Turkey, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc. If each of them, based on “internal affairs” argument, will paralyze these routs leading to Armenia inside their own country, per se, then it in fact, it becomes Armenia’s internal affair. This is just an example. We can say the same about fiber optics cables, electricity transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, and so on. Majority of the states in the world depends on the “internal” situation in other states.

 

“It should be left to the people of the region to solve their problem,” you say. How idealistic and how invalid … And of all the people of the region, it is us, the Armenians, who have begged others to come to this region- from Europe to Russia. If history of the world is of any value, it should be apparent how the people of this region solve their problems. Besides, if the US doesn’t put pressure on this region, do you feel that no one else is going to meddle or someone else is not going to occupy the “vacuum?” The US did everything so that the countries of the UN Security Council lead the current operation jointly. Some did not come aboard.

 

“Terrorism is a result of weakness and people who have no means of fighting a conventional war turn to terrorism,” you say. Partially yes, partially no - more no than yes. Terrorism has long history. The killing of the Prince of Prussia, for example, had nothing to do with the “desperate people.” Terrorism has been a tool of solving political and ideological problems for centuries. As a tool of solving ideological problems, it has been brought to life by the Marxists and the Socialists.

 

There are many desperate people around the world. There are a number of desperate nations in Africa, Asia. I don’t think Bangladeshis are less desperate than the Palestinians, for example. Nor I think that the population of Zimbabwe is less desperate. Terrorism is not a manifestation of only desperateness. It is an aggregate of poverty (most of the time, but not always), culture, ideological and political thought. As a rule, it is cultivated and executed by the left leaning groups.

 

Partisans of WWII had nothing to do with terrorism. These partisans where fighting liberation war of gorilla style. Their targets were not the German civilians, but the German military targets and the military personnel. It is an absolute nonsense to declare the partisans terrorists.

 

There is a huge discrepancy between the Israeli and the Arab powers, in the region, indeed. There is a small state of 6 million (don’t know the exact numbers) people in that region, with absolutely no resources, surrounded by states who pledge her distraction, and a number of, at least, potentially very wealthy countries, with about 200 million population (don’t know the exact numbers, again), who claim that their neighbor “has no right to exist.” This is where the discrepancy starts.

 

I wall call xenophobic anyone who does not understand this elementary fact or pretends not to understand it. And there are many of those in this forum, too. Israel has the right to exist. When the Arab world or whomever, declares otherwise, that means they declare war to Israel. In such case, Israel is entitled to having all possible, all existing and non existing weaponry, on the earth and heaven. Israel’s existence (and that on a chunk of worthless soil) does not threaten anyone’s national security. It just rattles their xenophobia and homophobia.

 

That Sharon may be a war criminal such as Arafat, it may very well be true. I neither have sufficient facts to claim it nor to deny it. In fact, I am inclined to think that it is true. But so is Arafat, so was Assad (father), the heads of other Arab states. They are counterparts worth each other.

 

Each problem has its logic of solutions. There is a “causational-consequential” argument to be made in everything. If the Arab world things that Sharon is a war criminal, it can declare its recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and then exercise its sovereign rights in the court of International Law, and call Sharon and his likes on the rug. After all, you claim that the larger problems have to be resolved by the International Institutions. Then why not to try this relatively more manageable one?

 

When the distraction of Israel is their state policy, allegations of a “war crime” towards this or that individual are ridiculous. This is the real discrepancy, if we have to speak of discrepancies.

 

Back to Sharon… Sharon is not the issue here. In 1990, the US administration was most adamant against the Israeli policies. Some argue that Bush (senior) lost his second term because he antagonized the Jews in America by pressing Israel very hard. Even Clinton, being most pro-Jewish, was exerting enormous pressure on Israel. American Jewry is exerting enormous pressure on Israel. There is huge antagonism between the American Jewry and that of Israel - more than it has existed between the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in the past. No one is supporting some of the Israeli policies. But when it comes to looking at the reality, you have one side which declares that the other side doesn’t have the right to exist, and the other says, “screw you.” Let’s finally get this. It is not hard.

 

As far as the US is concerned, let me try to make my point clear, one more time. Arab terrorism has transgressed the Middle East boundaries, and has been delivered to the US soil. It will happen time and time again, unless it is uprooted from where it is incubated. This situation can be compared with the one where there is a nest of infection spreading insects delivering it to the remote corners of the world, and one finds sufficient just killing the insects when they arrive to the remote locations, rather than destroying the nest.

 

To specifically address your argument on nuclear weaponry, which I find to be incredibly ill thought out, if Syria tries to develop nuclear arms, not that Israel “will not occupy Golan Heights,” but before Syria knows, Israel will swipe the Golan Heights and turn it into a valley. This is the proper logic behind the proper argument. Recall the Iraqi nuclear plant story… And if it was me, Syria should not see Golan Heights until she recognizes the right of Israel to exist, establishes diplomatic relations, resolves the demarcation issues and mutually demilitarizes the adjacent to Israel districts.

 

I, personally, as irrelevant as my wishes are, don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons – especially in the vicinity of Armenia. In fact, I find that perspective extremely troubling. Even the USSR and the US came to an understanding that the nuclear arms had to be phased out, after going through decades of escalation. I don’t want Turkey and Iran to have nuclear arms – they are on the way. I don’t want Syria and Israel to have them. I want a peaceful and cooperating region, less hatred, less human misery, etc. I want progress in the region. I want conditions, where our nation can properly develop her potential and not to become hostage in the hands of Robik, Serje, Dodi Gago, Shvo and Gvo, as a result of the realities created by the regional deadlock.

 

“The mess created in Middle East is a result of involvement of forces not native to a region,” you say. This kind of statements makes an impression that you are not considering the issue intellectually, but emotionally. That is a pity. Regardless of whoever has created the mess (and that is not the US), it is there, and the natives cannot deal with it as of now. Given the opportunity, they will just slaughter each other much the way they have done it for four thousand years.

 

In conclusion, I would just say the following: if a relative peace prevails in Europe, it has nothing to do with the “cultured Europe.” It is resulted from the status quo established after the WWII, and the fact that most of them have came to be satisfied or accept it (except the reality of Yogoslavia, which they strived to dismantle at the first opportunity), by recognizing the high and unjustifiable cost of bringing changes.

 

The situation in Middle East, except the one related to Israel, is resulted from the WWI. It has been long time but, so far, the nations of the region have not come to accept it [and perhaps one may argue, rightfully so].

 

Definitely it has nothing to do with the International Institutions. As I tried, successfully or not, to make a point, International Institutions have not come from Mars. They are just formalized forums for discussions for the same countries, which discuss things also outside these forums – through bilateral or multilateral relationships. The only thing that the [international Institutions] UN provides is the following: outside the UN, France is totally irrelevant. Inside the UN France has some relevance. That is all.

 

Somewhere in your note, you mention the American culture being newer than the cultures of some other countries. I get an impression that you insinuate that an older culture is something necessarily preferable than the newer one. I would argue that most frequently an old culture means a rotten one. It means something out of realm and smelly, shorting reinvention. An old culture is not necessarily better then the new one. In fact, I would argue that in most of the cases the opposite is true. To be more specific may require opening a new thread up. I am not prepared to do it right now.

 

Finally, as much as I can observe, this ridiculous anti-Americanism does not have a whole lot to do with the subject we are discussing. Underneath, it has the same “old class straggle (event the terminology),” as its pretext, and has the desire of bringing “the shrine of capitalism and imperialism” down. Most of the European public has become increasingly more socialistic – some has always been so. Some of the US younger generation (I would estimate about 20% of the US population) has become so. At the end of the day, it comes down to the same category of “entitlements,” I have once spoken about. Many people have the feeling of being “entitled.” There are some such people in this forum – especially those who are still under the “daddy’s wing,” or are about to come out of there. Since they haven’t done anything in their lives on their own, yet, and are in or about to enter the larger world, they find it safer to exclaim, “Give it! I want it, too. I am also entitled to it!” This relates not only to the individuals in this forum, but to some degree, also to some of the European countries.

 

My take on it is that no one is entitled to anything other than equal opportunity. Everything must be earned. It may require working hard – as much as some [in this forum] may insinuate that the hard work is not prerequisite for success. I would say yes, if one wants to “take it away from someone who already has it.”

Edited April 9, 2003 by MJ

[Azat]

Alpha, MJ, Very nice. This is one of the reasons why after 2 years I still come to this forum everyday. Always an opportunity to learn from members like you.

 

MJ could I ask a personal question? Are you a Libertarian? If not, have you considered it?

[MJ]

Azat,

 

In some issues I am Liberal, in other issues I am Conservative. In fact, I don’t understand it when one qualifies himself/herself liberal or conservative across the board.

 

I do think that I am Libertarian by my essence, as a person.

 

However, I tend to vote Republican – the least of the two evils.

[Azat]

I vote Democratic all the time but tend to think like a Liberal when it comes to most fiscal policies and school and health funding and such. I have similar feelings as you when it comes to people who feel others owe them things.

[alpha]

The interview below has some relevance to the discussion we are having in this thread. MJ, I will try to more clearly articulate my points next time. Interesting discussion indeed. We both desire a peaceful world with no nuclear weapons, but the way to achieve that goal you see through Pax-Americana, I see through international institutions. I will get back to this subject some other time. I am really pressed on time now.

 

Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Date: 2003.03.24 19:41

 

Pax Americana - Living Reality

Alexander Rahr, a well-known German political scientist specialising in Eastern European affairs, shared his prognosis concerning the development of events in the Middle East and their effects on Europe and the rest of the world with the Rosbalt news agency.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- On March 20, Germany witnessed a wave or demonstrations against the US invasion of Iraq. Schoolchildren went to the streets with slogans instead of going to their classrooms, workers demonstrated instead of doing their jobs. Do you think this 'spontaneous' reaction may, in fact, have been well coordinated by someone?

- In fact, for Germany, this is truly phenomenal.

This is phenomenal not just because the streets are full of so many antiwar protestors - for the first time in decades. It is also phenomenal because, for the first time since WW2, the government and people are united in their antiwar impulse. Federal ministers walk the streets of Berlin among other protestors, while the Federal Chancellor speaks the words one can hear at an antiwar meeting - from the podium in the Bundestag. An absolute majority of Germans oppose this war.

 

- However, there is no complete unity where attitudes toward the war in Iraq are concerned, is there? Angela Merkel, the leader of the SPD/CDU party coalition, which is among the most influential in Germany, says that Christian Democrats support the US.

 

- Well, here we deal with the duality of feelings that we find in any German.

On the one hand, the Germans are very much afraid that America's war against Iraq may turn into a war between the Christian West and Islam. They are afraid of bomb explosions in German streets and crazy warriors of Allah seizing aeroplanes and sending anthrax and plague germs in mail. Of course, one should keep in mind that the post-war decades shaped all Germans into total pacifists.

 

Pacifism was instilled in them to such a degree that many young people even became militant pacifists who are now so loud in German squares. Militant pacifism first became evident during the Kosovo war, when Germany supported NATO and even sent her troops to Yugoslavia. Yet then the pacifist movement was timid, still having to overcome much resistance, lots of it in these people's own minds.

On the other hand, the Germans, the government as much as the people, are afraid of losing the US as a friend and protector.

 

Immediately after WW2, the Americans began helping the Germans to restore and develop their country. Of course, many say that America was after her own ends while doing that. Yet whatever it was, America and no one else helped Germany to become 'the engine of Europe', an economically developed and politically influential country. This is why now many Germans are reluctant to quarrel with America over Saddam Hussein.

 

- Yet in his public address, President Johannes Rau was very seriously saying that anti-Americanism was inadmissible in Germany. Does this mean that there are certain anti-American sentiments?

 

- I see no anti-American tendencies in German society. The Germans are rather in shock because America, which for a long time was their role model, friend, and protector, is suddenly getting involved in such a shady enterprise.

I believe this is why so many sharp words have been lately said by the Germans about America.

 

- Chancellor Schroeder, who was the first among European leaders to say he could not accept American actions toward Iraq, now has been, as it were, pushed aside by the Presidents of France and Russia. French and Russian voices are now the loudest among those of other protestors.

 

- I must admit, I believe that Mr. Schroeder is the most honest of the three mentioned leaders. He opposes the war outside of any purposes other than trying to keep the word he gave his constituents. His pacifism is, sometimes, simply naïve. Chirac and Putin leave certain loopholes for themselves that allow them continued negotiations with the US, while Schroeder literally put himself in an isolation, even in Germany.

 

Joschka Fischer, for instance, when speaking about the Iraq conflict, softens his tone, gets evasive, while trying to make some space for Germany to manoeuvre. Schroeder, on the other hand, is simply appalled at what Bush is doing and is not trying to hide it. There are no geopolitics in his reaction.

France is the leader among the three European protestors. Her leaders even now are trying to grab as much political space in the post-was multipolar world as possible .

 

The French hope to become the new political pole opposed to Pax Americana. In the meantime, Germany does not want any multipolar world at all. As soon as this war is over, the Germans will again side with he US, you will see.

 

- Is this what you believe will happen? And when, do you think, this war is going to end?

 

- I am no military expert. However, I think this must take probably about three weeks. At least, judging by what is happening on financial markets.

 

- And then what?

 

- Everyone will calm down and get used to the new alignment of forces, while the US will get busy 'disarming' North Korea, Iran, Syria maybe, and making new mistakes.

 

At this time, America is the only superpower in the world, even though she has not yet reached her top power. Pax Americana is the reality of our time, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Of course, this also will end. I think, in about ten years, the multipolarity of the world will become far more apparent. Then we will need new a United Nations, different from the organisation now.

 

- Do you think the role of the UN has declined because of the Iraq conflict?

 

- As the world government, the UN began declining even at the time of the conflict in Kosovo. This organisation has been in need of reforming for over 5 years. It was created on the basis of the post-war realities, which existed in 1945. Later, it was reshaped to fit into the cold war realities. And now, we have a total new reality.

 

The new 'world government' must include southern countries, such as Brazil, India, Pakistan, and Australia. They have their own vision of the world and their own problems, which today's UN knows rather little about.

Unless their interests are taken into account, a conflict between the North and the South may replace the long gone by then conflict between the West and the East. Do you think, anyone needs that?

Besides, Russia and Germany also may become very important for the new world community.

 

- Do you think it is possible , in the light of the above, that Germany, well, let's better say the European Union may begin closely cooperating with Russia?

 

- The European Union is a very viable organisation. It keeps developing and very successfully. The Europeans have already realised that as separate national states they have no chance of becoming significant figures in the multipolar structure of humanity. Only a united Europe is worth something. Also, make a note of the fact that while America is strong and the world is Pax Americana, Europe can and most likely will be also strong and economically sound.

 

Yet the true political significance of the European Union is still ahead. If it closely cooperates with Russia, the significance of both parties will grow. So everything is possible. However, at this time, it is not yet so. The Europeans still distrust Russia because of their memories of cold war.

As to the Russians, they are in no hurry to begin completely trusting the Germans either - for the same reason and, going even further back, remembering WW2.

 

An active generation must come and go for true cooperation to begin to develop. Well, we still have time.

 

- Let us keep hoping

 

The interviewer was Boris Nemirovsky, Berlin

 

Translated by Alex Nemtsev

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

©2001-2002 Rosbalt News Agency

[Sasun]

IMO, of all versions of what is happening now, realpolitik explains the best. This is about the US ability and desire to establish a global domination in the world. Countries opposing the war are motivated by resistance to US domination, not because of humanitarian reasons, simply because it would diminish the degree they have any say in the world politics (and economics since it is now very much entangled with politics). Had France, or Germany, Russia, China had the chance of global domination, they would certainly do the same what the US is doing.

Ther rest of effects are consequences of realpolitik, although some things cannot be explained by the latter (e.g. demonstrations in the US and UK, activiteis of international humanitarian organizations). All politicians' statements that we hear, be it US or European leaders, are simply politics and a cover for their actions and agendas. Well, this is the old rule of international politics, nothing new in essence, just taking a new form ...

[Azat]

From Forbes Magazine

 

OutFront

Bowl-o-Drama

Daniel Lyons, 12.09.02

 

Michael Moore's Oscar-contender documentary, Bowling for Columbine, pokes fun at corporate creeps and hypocrites in his crusade to figure out who is to blame for the gun-related violence in America. But we've found Moore's facts a little slippery.

 

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.

ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

 

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.

ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

 

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.

ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

 

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.

ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1209/059..._requestid=6287

[MJ]

I found another material which has some relevance to some of our previous discussions:

 

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism

Barry Rubin

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2002

 

 

 

Summary: Despite what many argue, Arab and Muslim rage at the United States has had very little to do with actual U.S. policies--policies that have been remarkably pro-Arab over the past 50 years. Promoting anti-Americanism is simply the best way Muslim leaders have found to distract their publics from the real problem: internal mismanagement. New U.S. policies or a PR campaign will not change matters.

 

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest books are The Tragedy of the Middle East and Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East.

 

DAMN YANKEES

 

Since last year's attacks on New York and Washington, the conventional wisdom about the motivation behind such deadly terrorism has gelled. The violence, we are often told, was a reaction to misguided U.S. policies. For years, certain American actions -- such as the country's support for Israel and for unpopular, oppressive Arab regimes -- had supposedly produced profound grievances throughout the Middle East. Those grievances came to a boil over time, and finally spilled over on September 11. The result was more than 3,000 American deaths.

 

Although anti-Americanism is genuinely widespread among Arab governments and peoples, however, there is something seriously misleading in this account. Arab and Muslim hatred of the United States is not just, or even mainly, a response to actual U.S. policies -- policies that, if anything, have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim over the years. Rather, such animus is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies.

 

This distinction should have a profound impact on American policymakers. If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded in domestic maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing Washington's policies will affect it. In fact, if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse. New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

 

THE BLAME GAME

 

For years now, anti-Americanism has served as a means of last resort by which failed political systems and movements in the Middle East try to improve their standing. The United States is blamed for much that is bad in the Arab world, and it is used as an excuse for political and social oppression and economic stagnation. By assigning responsibility for their own shortcomings to Washington, Arab leaders distract their subjects' attention from the internal weaknesses that are their real problems. And thus rather than pushing for greater privatization, equality for women, democracy, civil society, freedom of speech, due process of law, or other similar developments sorely needed in the Arab world, the public focuses instead on hating the United States.

 

What makes this strategy remarkable, however, is the reality of past U.S. policy toward the region. Obviously, the United States, like all countries, has tried to pursue a foreign policy that accords with its own interests. But the fact remains that these interests have generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and peoples. For example, the United States may have had its own reasons for saving Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictatorship in 1991 -- mainly to preserve cheap oil. But U.S. policy was still, in effect, pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim, and pro-Arab. After all, Washington could have used the war as a pretext to seize Kuwait's oil fields for ...

 

[to acquire the rest of the material requires a fee]

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101faes...mericanism.html

[Dan]

The Columbine Coverup. What is left out of the news is the undercurrent that propelled those two young students to do what they did. Both were strugglng with homosexual feelings and had been harassed unmercifully for many years by their peers. The school adminstrators had done nothing to stop this and had even encouraged the tormentors.

Yes, and that would also explain why one of the two yelled 'who here is a Catholic?' (if I remember correctly), and when a girl jumped up and said 'I'm a Catholic!', they shot her. Perhaps that has something to do with the views of the Catholic church and community on homosexuality?

 

Believe it or not, I don't view those 2 kids who shot the others as criminals. I think they were all victims of the cruel system we're all living in.

 

We need to view the Columbine shootings in a compassionate manner, not with angry resentment. So that history wouldn't repeat itself.

 

Dan

[Dan]

I don't know... If gay-bashing, or even anti-gay sentiment is the reason behind the massacres, then there would be a hell of a lot more high-school murderous rampages going throughout the world. Besides, kids get harrassed all the time. Kids make fun of other kids. It's a fact of life - it builds character, it teaches valuable lessons. It certainly doesn't create murderers.

Well, each individual has a way of reacting to it. Did you know that those who have been abused react more strongly to another sexual assault or hints of contact of sexaul nature? Who knows what those kids' background and experiences were? Before going ahead and calling them racists, anti-Semites (which the Jewish community did, even though I believe there were no Jewish kids killed - or maybe one out of 12), we should first take a look at the abuse those kids took from others. Remember, if someone is raped and goes and kills the person who raped him/her, it's called the battered-person syndrome. People have been cleared of charges of murder on that basis. The mind is a weird thing - it has weird ways of functioning and reacting... Sometimes good, sometimes bad...

 

Person 1 might be strong and might be able to tolerate gay-bashing and bullying, Person 2 might not be able to. Remember, many people are bullied (not necessarily for their homosexuality), but not all commit suicide - only some do. For some, it builds character, for some it builds anger and resentment, and for some, it builds despair, which eventually leads to an outburst...

 

And no, bullying is not a fact of life. It can be stopped. If you look at the nature of bullying, you will see that all of it comes from the parents - the way the parents talk at home about homosexuals, Jews, Arabs, blacks, etc. It fills kids with anger and hatred, and because most of them don't have a good judgement at their age, it makes a huge impact on their personality. And yes, it DOES create murderers - murderers who are victims of the system.

 

If those 2 kids were indeed gay and if there was gay-bashing against them and the teachers/supervisors did nothing to stop it, I think those supervisors should be held responsible for it, rather than those 2 kidss.

 

Dan

[nairi]

One question to our resident Canadians: do YOU lock your doors?

 

I finally watched this movie on DVD last night and must say that there were some fair points in there, especially concerning that whole fear-culture. I notice that every time I go back to LA or have relatives come to Holland. Sadly, however, like everything else American, the fear-culture too is beginning make its way here Just ten years ago we didn't lock our doors...

[bellthecat]

I finally watched this movie on DVD last night and must say that there were some fair points in there, especially concerning that whole fear-culture.

I finally watched it on TV about a week earlier. What a BIG disapointment it was. Silly and childish. Moore comes over as a spoilt brat who makes a whole film to prove something he had decided on in advance. And ends by not proving anything!

 

What was the point of all his opposition to the gun culture stuff, when, as he says, there are even more guns owned by Canadians. I'd guess the point was that it was an excuse for him to use his pointless (but good publicity blurb for the film) interview with Heston, whe actually ended up appearing much more mature than Moore could ever be. Moore is someone who would exploit anything and anyone for his own ends. That bit where he places the photo of the dead girl in Heston's house was really sick. I wonder, did that girls parents know how Moore was going to abuse her image?

 

The "fear culture" thing was the only interesting thing the film explored - and he didn't do it in any great depth - I guess because that subject was out of his intellectual depth.

 

Steve

[Azat]

BRAVO Steve. Very nice review of this film and Moore

[Stormig]

Well, Bowling For Columbine was meant for the masses, not the "intellectuals"...

[Stormig]

I unfortunately got to watch only the first half of the movie - and you have to admit that what the parent said to the public about his killed son, that he wasn't killed with a Colt or something but a semi-automatic with which obviously you're not going to go deer-hunting, was right on the spot!

If you read his recent book, Dude, Where's My Country?, he goes more into the "culture of fear," and, I swear, I am about cured of being a hypochondriac.

I'm not going to go into who he is and what his purpose is, but I find myself coming up with tidbits now and then when reading him, things he doesn't say himself. I mean, just relax, kick back, and enjoy your reading, and when you're done ask yourself if some things haven't been straightened out in your head at all. NONE of the stuff about Iraq is new to any of us - I have been reading stuff from a variety of sources, ranging from the American leftists to Asia Times Online (and occasionally posting stuff here) - yet he knows how to put pieces into place. Yeah, why don't I read mainstream American? Because they are morons who swallow hook, line, and sink.

I'm not gonna review the book - those that care to know can read it themselves.

Precision operations with minimum loss of Iraqi lives, my arse... Like I said before, we heard that in Afghanistan, too, yet there was that journalist who visited that one wiped-out village where "nothing had happened" according to American mainstream...

One thing I just laughed my butt off at was the story of the husband who shoots his wife on her way to the bathroom, thinking it's a burglar instead. Talk about fear culture. Just the thing a redneck or a Turk would do. j/k

 

And, come on now, this was pathetic:

 

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.

ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

 

As if that mothers can't spend appropriate time to look after their children can't be true - http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7348 The shooting is only part of the problem!

[nairi]

I love your honesty, Steve

[bellthecat]

I love your honesty, Steve

Too honest for my own (or others) good sometimes.

[bellthecat]

About the "culture of fear" thing - there was a fascinating documentary series on British TV a couple of yeas ago. It was about Freud and his (and his family's)unhealth influences on western society. I think it was called "hidden hands".

 

Seems that |Freud had (as a result of the events of the ww1 period) developed a phobia about people in general, he believed that they were all basically irrational and dangerous, and their desires needed to be controlled by their "betters" if society was to survive. This questionable belief was the cornerstone to all his theories.

 

I would guess that when Freud's credo became widely accepted in America, from the 1920s onward, an inevitable side effect was that America's "culture of fear" started. By its nature it had to be an internalised fear (as opposed to the fear generated by Nazi Germany to unify the country that was directed specifically at the outsider, at "the enemy").

 

Steve

[Azat]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmm.htm

 

The guy is a total hypicrit...