You may or may not be aware that China has been building very strong alliances all over the world by providing all sorts of humanitarian aid. The Chinese clearly understand the critical energy needs their country will face as their explosive growth continues. The US, meanwhile, led by petro-imperialists, is not accustomed to having competition of this sort. For many years, the US was able to position its military on permanent bases all over the world. We were able to have our way with foreign governments and we used power, be it military, economic, or other to control whatever we thought needed controlling. The number one beneficiary of this imperialism was not the American people but rather powerful and wealthy corporate interests. Well, those days are numbered and it sure looks like a price we can ill afford is about to be exacted.
And the US political class? You know, all those prominent Senators and Congressmen, what counsel do they offer on this issue? What legislation do they propose? What platform planks do they fight to have included?
I'd be very interested to know what people think of the essay below. I'd especially like to focus on the Democratic Party and its candidates. How do Democrats think about the issue being raised? Is this a bunch of left-wing garbage or is this a very real problem? Is it not spoken about by prominent Democrats because they disagree with it or because they think raising such issues would create a huge political risk?
And, if it's because of politics, can nothing be done to change the situation we're in? If you're supporting a candidate, what does your candidate say about this? Nothing at all? Why not? Why are you supporting them if they have no plan?
I'll excerpt a little of the essay here. You would probably be better off following the link and reading the whole article for yourself. It's very disturbing to say the least. Someday, real freedom fighters will arise. For now, an underground campaign of spreading the word is pretty much all we have. At least that's the way I see it.
source:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0211-23.htm
The US Says it is Fighting For Democracy - But is Deaf to the Cries of the Iraqis
They are not building a palatial embassy with the intention of going
by Noam Chomsky
On the US motives for staying in Iraq, I can only repeat what I've been saying for years. A sovereign Iraq, partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US planners. With a Shia majority, it is likely to continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shia population right across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there for human rights and a degree of autonomy - and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is.
Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's petroleum resources and independent of the US, undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power after the Second World War. Worse yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown - the primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, and with the Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shia-dominated bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners and their Western allies.
There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK are likely to try in every possible way to maintain effective control over Iraq. The US is not constructing a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the world and virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring money into military bases, with the intention of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. All of this is quite separate from the expectations that matters can be arranged so that US corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.
These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are not within the realm of discussion, as can easily be determined. That is only to be expected. These considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that state power has noble objectives, and while it may make terrible blunders, it can have no crass motives and is not influenced by domestic concentrations of private power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths is either ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons: allowing them to be discussed could undermine power and privilege. <skip>
US policy should be that of all aggressors: (1) pay reparations; (2) attend to the will of the victims; (3) hold the guilty parties accountable, in accord with the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, and other international instruments. A more practical proposal is to work to change the domestic society and culture substantially enough so that what should be done can at least become a topic for discussion. That is a large task, not only on this issue, though I think élite opposition is far more ferocious than that of the general public.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
