Reply to a Friend − March 23, 2003

This weekend I unearthed an old document from March 23, 2003, which was written in response to a letter I received from a friend earlier in the month. This friend had taken the time to write a long reproach to the attitude towards the Bush administration—and American hegemony in general—found on this web site. The quoted blocks are from the friend, but the document is not available online. Therefore, though the quotes remain somewhat out of context, most are long enough to indicate to what thought I was responding in the ensuing paragraph.

Much of the conversation centers around Iraq, but the original document darted around to many topics. I can’t excuse the arrogance of my reply[1], but I can only say that this was not the first time I had had these discussions with this friend. The reply was more intended as a preventative against any future discussions and a catharsis.

Iraq

“See, if Iraq could really gain democracy it would be much better for its population, because oppressing dictatorship is absolutely not a way of life. ”

Agreed.

“Maybe it is ‘the great illusion’ to try to help. One can only, in good faith, try.”

I don’t think it’s at all an “illusion” to try to help. That is what we should do, as moral beings. The United States is in no way trying to help Iraq. The United States has no record of helping any nations in the last 50 years (it could be argued that Germany, Italy, Japan were helped by the US, but the rebuilding of Europe was mostly undertaken to ensure future control and to prevent the spread of socialism, as if it were a disease. Logical from the standpoint of the rulers of the United States, but not moral.)

Do you really believe that the best way to help a nation like Iraq achieve democracy is by first installing, then supporting a brutal dictator for 10 years (while he fought Iran for us), then by bombing the country flat, then by imposing a medieval blockade of food and medical supplies for 12 years, then by bombing them flat again? Of course, of course, Saddam could relieve all the suffering by simply stepping down…but so could the US by simply lifting the embargo once we saw it wasn’t working….it only makes the innocent suffer more.

“Iraq is a very rich country, it is not an Afghanistan, they could govern themselves and make a very functional country all by themselves without the USA, so could Iran, Lybia, Siria (sic), all rich countries with very bad egoistic governments.”

Yes, but once again, we have to turn to history as a guide. If solely the people of Iraq were allowed to benefit from the wealth of their natural resources, then it would be the first time the US has allowed that to happen in almost a century. You will hear all sorts of logical arguments coming soon: the US paid for the cost of liberating them, they should get ‘spoils of war” (already mentioned by Herr Bush as oil reserves). A recent article in the NY Times outlined $30 Billion worth of construction contracts (over the next 10 years) that will be awarded to US companies only (bypassing the legal bidding process since this is war-time and we are in a state of emergency—since it’s you, I will point out that I am being facetious). Don’t forget whose tax dollars these contracts are paid by.

Look to Venezuela as another guide; they are (were) nearly the number-one supplier of oil to the US. They made the mistake of electing a left-leaning President (Chavez) who foolishly thinks the same thing you mentioned above. He nationalized some resources and restricted foreign private investment to reduce capital flight (that’s when US or other foreign companies own all of a country’s resources and none of the money earned from those resources stays in the country – hence the capital (money) flees the country). Last year, in April, a US-backed military coup failed to oust Chavez, but now a strike, interestingly led by upper-level management, not the workers, has crippled that country. Despite Chavez’s massive popular support among his people and his relatively progressive, rational policies, the Bush administration wants nothing to do with him. That’s not too surprising when you see that Chavez’s policies directly affect the pocketbooks of large American petroleum corporations, who just happen to be massive campaign contributors of Bush’s. Coincidences abound, no?

“[Y]ou know that Saddam sent them away because they saw too much. They knew that the money he received for his population he used to buy illegal weapons and chemicals from our ‘friends’ France, Germany, Russia; maybe not China because they need all of this, and buy them themselves on the black market.”

I do not know that. I have not been properly indoctrinated by the media. Saddam did not send away the inspectors in 1998; that is a popular myth promulgated virtually everywhere because it is so convenient to believe. The inspectors were withdrawn once Clinton made it known that an attack was coming (just like last week)…of course this attack was only a small rain of cruise missiles instead of an occupation. Think about it rationally, Iraq has no control of its own airspace, inspectors had been in the country for years, where, suddenly, did Saddam get the power to throw the inspectors out, after 5 years?

Also, do not force me to mention that the US was a primary provider of weapons to Saddam during the war against Iran. Rumsfeld himself can be found pictured shaking hands with Saddam less than a year before the first Gulf War. British and American firms were still delivering supplies around the blockade as recently as 1999, while well-oiled palms in both governments turned a blind eye.

“I do not oppose that maybe there will be some corporations that are dishonest, unfortunately it is the damned human nature. One should not be so skeptical though.”

There is a lot of ground between skeptical and naive. To say that all corporations (let us broaden that to bureaucracies) are dishonest is like saying that all stoves are hot. You may find that some are not, but you might get burned it you assume it isn’t.

“But France is the one country who is profiting the most with her trafficking with Iraq. They have much too much to lose if Saddam is defeated.”

I’ve heard this argument several times as well. Why should France be worried that her contracts won’t be honored by the next government? There are many third-world nations that would love to be able to forget about debts and contracts incurred by a ruthless dictator, but they aren’t allowed to. Why should France and Russia be worried? A democratic country rising from the ashes of Saddam’s reign would be more than happy to continue trade with these large first-world nations, no?

Perhaps there is something more to it, then. Perhaps there are worried that if the US orchestrates the new regime there, all the oil will magically start to flow to the US. I think this is quite a legitimate concern, since it would be quite in keeping with past behavior. Please note that I don’t think that the question of whether Saddam should be removed enters into it. The answer is yes—but not unequivocally. Since the US is offering to do it, countries that don’t forget inconvenient history as soon as it happens, are of course quite suspicious that everything will “conveniently” work out completely in the US” favor.

“…he is still the head of the free world, and deserves respect”

Here, I have to stridently disagree with you. He is, at most, the elected President of the US. If you’$1read the history of the 2000 election, you would see that it is only through a broad unconstitutional overreaching of the judicial branch (most specifically Herr Scalia) that brought him to that position. Being magically elected to that position by a vote of 5 to 4 did not change any of his own history or his abilities.

The leader of the free world is a title granted to the leader of a country that has amassed the most destructive nuclear power by indebting its people to the tune of $6 Trillion.

“How can the Russians or China support the war, they are free per say, but still can not come out and freely say a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without fearing consequences, they need both: the US moneys and the black market money of Iraq. Freeing people from oppression? They dealt with it for centuries. Who cares. One country more or less. Not their problem.”

We come back to this again. I think the major miscommunication I sense here is the oldest one. It is not that I (or France or China or Russia) do not agree that Saddam is a monster and should go. That is almost universally agreed. It is the solution proposed by the US for removing him that is most vehemently not agreed upon. It is a fact that countries liberated by the US in this fashion most often end up as puppet states of the US. That is not desired in this case. By me, because I think it is morally wrong. By nation, likely for more selfish motives involving the resources of Iraq. However, remember that the US has those same selfish motives. They played along with Saddam until he was no longer a pliant puppet. Now, all of a sudden, he must go. It is completely reasonable to assume that Saddam is now being removed because the US wants to install a new Saddam, but one who responds to US, not French or Russian, needs.

American Glory

“No, they come here, because this country is not all that bad as you make it in you commentaries”

I do not “make it bad” in my commentaries. I simply remember history that US would rather keep forgotten. Perhaps you don’t realize the cocoon of propaganda within which you spend your days (and if the job is done correctly, you just accused me, in your head, of having fallen to some evil foreign propaganda of my own), but the perception of how America works is largely one of myth, rather than reality. Within the US, there is a lot of freedom; less now than before, but still enough to be able to write as I do in public without worry. It is the US foreign policy that is completely at odds with US espousals of freedom.

Be careful as well to separate what you are told from what you have experienced. You are told that anyone can do anything in the US; but, in fact, all around, you see a class separation that increases every year. Get ready for the next big tax cut coming down. In the first tax cut, I got $300. In the latest tax-cut, Herrs Bush and Cheney stood to recoup tens of thousands. I stood to recoup nothing. There’s a new tax-cut coming, ostensibly to “boost” the economy. Whose economy? Why not? We’ve seen how boosting the last 2 were.

“…but USA went to get them, but who sold them to them? Black African market, mothers would give the children up looking for a better life. It did not work out for many, but that was then.”

If you’re trying to get me to swear or simply stop writing, this is a good way to do it. So if I go to an extremely poor mother in a third-world country, tell her I will take her daughter away to a better life, then rape her every day until she dies…the woman is just as morally bankrupt and at fault as I?

“You mention Nicaragua, Mexico, what more, Pinochet… even Afghanistan or the supplies of arms to Iraq. Look what was done with Iran (shah), the WW2 H-bomb, those things were done for a situation ‘then’ right or wrong, it presented itself ‘then’, how can one make it a ‘Bush’ case now! Give me a break! … You and many, many others just despise outrightly Bush, fine, that is, what a free country is: freedom of speech. But to bring down a president with all the ills of the past…isn’t it a little heavy?”

Nope. You misunderstand. it’s not anything against Bush himself. Whether I like him or not is beside the point. it’s a matter of history. it’s a matter of reasonable expectations. Go read the history of any of those things you’ve mentioned. Do you think Pinochet was supported for years and years out of an enlightened interest in the democracy of Chile? No. It was pure self-interest on the part of the US. The game goes for the US-led coup that installed the Shah in Iran and the US funds that kept him there for 30 years. Good Lord, are you willing to forget all of history just to give “poor Bush” a chance? it’s not just Bush, there are a lot of familiar faces from the Empire-building days in his administration. Remember when he chose Kissinger to head the 9-11 investigation? I’$1sure the people of Chile and Laos (both countries in which he is wanted for war crimes) were delighted. That’s the point—you accuse me of seeing only Bush and hating him, but that is extremely insulting to the amount of effort I put into learning—and remembering—history. And then applying it to the future.

It is to that that I draw an analog to the situation in Iraq today. I know you complain that it is too much to remember, all of this, but that is no excuse. Afghanistan was a country that, as recently as a year ago, would not be again forgotten. It has already been forgotten. How can you discount this as judgmental? These are the actions of the current administration. I think it is unreasonable then to expect this administration to install a democracy in Iraq.

Untouchable President

“…but think of the age difference, different upbringing, different times in history of growing up. Less daring of taking up arguments, and expressing outright opinions”

This is, to some degree, a cop-out. Morals, ethics, fairness—most of all, logical thinking—knows no generational boundaries. Self-interest is usually the culprit that will lead to equivocation on easily perceived issues. Will I personally benefit if the corporations to which the US has been sold suddenly surge again? Of course, I have stock in them—a fact that I rue today. Do I wish for them to surge? No. I think the current corporate structure is sick and decayed, increasingly stratified to benefit a smaller and smaller minority of the already wealthy.

“Yes, during the campaign he promised a lot of nice things coming to America, infrastructures, better schools, medical provisions. But what happened? His attentions had to do a complete turnabout, and who the hell would want to have been in Bush’s position after 9/11?”

He finds $100-Billion for a war against a country no one feels threatened by (and which isn’t going anywhere, and despite the hysterical protestations of the administration and media, isn’t going to do anything) and the “education President” can’t find any money to keep kids in school? Did you hear that Portland has to cut 5 weeks off of their school year?

I’$1not going to quote your description of Bush’s rise to the Presidency here because it’s too long, but your characterization of him, again, is completely out of sync with any of his personal history. Read a biography on Bush to see if he’s actually the expansive, far-seeing, good man that his press releases say he is. Ask yourself if a man so dedicated to building up his own country could really ignore what’s happening now (unemployment soaring, deficit higher than than any time in history, national debt not being paid at all (that’s owed to the American people, not some stinking foreigners—as I’$1sure you were about to remind me), schools closing early all over the nation.

“He surely did use a lot of diplomacy, even went to speak personally to the UN, just to be snubbed by the ‘cultured’ French diplomat. He explained how long the US was disposed to still wait for Saddam to come around and ‘face the music’ (he could have said that) [He has those little phrases that annoy so much the ‘highly cultured’ people]”

it’s not the little phrases that annoy; it’s the gross oversimplification of issues that annoys. Go read his “diplomatic” appeal to the UN. It boils down to “agree with me or you’re useless”. Quite diplomatic.

Back to the Middle East

“…12 years of ‘signatures’ on documents, promises with absolutely not a shred of outcome (see Palestine/Israel).”

you’re covering a lot of ground here (as usual) and it’s difficult to keep interest in the discussion on paper as on the phone. You see, you bring up too many points. I can refute many of them on basic evidence, but by the time I’$1done, you’ve gone to something new and I get the feeling I’$1wasting my time explaining my point to you.

For example, you throw Palestine/Israel in there…do you have any idea of the history there? I mean, in a discussion of flouting UN resolutions, you bring up that conflict to support your side? Go look at the history there – Israel is in violation of over 60 resolutions, but no one’s invading them. And look at who is the only nation to vote with Israel whenever a resolution comes up in the UN to treat Palestinians like human beings or to give them some land back. Rest of world vs. US/Israel.

“France feeding material and other knowledges to Saddam to get him ready to have also nuclear opportunities?”

Where do you get this? Can you cite a source? Saddam, by all authoritative parties, does not have nuclear capabilities. The documents cited by Powell before the UN were forgeries. This is acknowledged. You, and President Bush, as well, are not allowed to continue to quote from forged documents. That is not playing by the rules because people will believe you and it will become truth.

“…that a human being that tries to be more concerned to do something for the good of the whole than only of the very few should be sponsored and not ridiculed and smeared.”

Good. Fine. If you read history, you will see that on the dozens of occasions on which the US has overthrown a government, saying this will install a democracy, in the last 50 years, they have not once done so.

Therefore, I want you to put your money where your mouth is. Since you espouse the theory of always taking the US at its word, regardless of how many times its broken it, try this is personal life. Find a doctor who has killed every patient he’s administered and go to him anyway. I mean, it’s not fair to not give him a chance, is it?

Wishin’ It Real

“Wouldn’t it be nice if it would work out that way? If this would turn out to be a success with this country?”

It would be fabulous. I really hope it happens. I also really hope I win the lottery every time I play.

“…one cannot come in and say to the populace that the sky is red and everyone believes it.. there are quick way to be more informed, right?”

This is a fabulously innocent take on the status of information management in the world today. Just because the information is available doesn’t mean it gets used. Look at us. You get your news almost solely from the television media. I get mine from sources of my own choosing. We have strident differences of opinion which largely come down to differences in knowledge, not differences in moral or ethical underpinnings.

Turn on the TV and watch. But this time, with every phrase that falls out of the talking head’s mouth, ask yourself—did they just tell me the sky is red?

Hey, cool, I found a case-in-point already.

“clowns marching with signs just determined to do the contrary of what the administration is doing because it is NOT THEIR administration.”

Do you see how you have been brainwashed into thinking that all of these anti-war demonstrators, every single one, are just contrarians acting out of spite. That you believe they couldn’t possibly have any valid grounds for protesting. it’s truly amazing that polls showing 80-90% of the peoples in most of Europe, Canada, Mexico, etc. are against a unilateral war (what is currently being fought) and you manage to believe that they are all fatuous idiots just being big babies.

I would march. Is that what you think of me?

“…let the politics to the ones that follows, studies, reads upon, talks about, discusses with other knowledgeable people about them”

That is exactly wrong. Politics the way you’ve described it easily controlled by that group. Democracy is for everyone. If Sean Penn, who is far better spoken and informed than many I’ve read, wants to share his opinion, that’s his prerogative. He’s a citizen. Think about what you’re saying – is this really your own opinion? Or has it just been hammered in there by Rush or his ilk?

“When is it ever popular to rule with principles?”

I find it utterly fascinating that you would call the Bush administration a “principled” one. Your rhetoric strikes me as quite similar to Herr Bush’s speeches. They say good things. Things with which I agree. But the declaration that it will be so, as a foregone conclusion, conflicts with the facts and with history.

Example: Bush is selling his new tax cut to Congress as an “economic boost”. The last two tax cuts he got were also “economic boosts”. At what point are you going to ask yourself if he’s lying? Or if he’s simply deluded? They have both plummeted the economy into even worse straits, a situation amply predicted by most economists – excluding those within the Bush administration. it’s not a hatred of Bush or thinking he’s a liar. I quite frankly don’t care why he’s saying it. I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe it in the same way that I don’t believe the Sun will rise in the West tomorrow. it’s never happened before, so why should I believe it will happen this time?

What, should we all have faith or something?

“You mention the sanctions: why were imposed? Did the ruler try to comply so that his people would fare better? Nooo, why should he, he is bathing in a golden tub, who cares about the subjects. Is this a person due respect? Is this a person to keep in power?”

I believe I answered this above. The sanctions were doing nothing to remove Saddam from power. They killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Knock it off. Here comes an analogy.

it’s as if your neighbor was on welfare and had two kids. The kids were treated horribly by this guy, just beaten and abused. He made them go to part-time jobs and kept all the money for himself, spending it on his car and buying beer. Social services is still sending him the checks and he spends most of it on his car, but buys some food for the kids. What’s the solution?

The US solution (pulling from analogy here) would be to stop the social services checks from coming. Now the kids have no food and are malnourished, hardly able to fend for themselves. When the kids get beaten because there’s no money coming in, the US would say “if the kids really wanted to rid of him, they would throw him out.”

That’s much better.

I know you will think I exaggerated the analogy, but read it carefully and let me know where I’$1wrong.

Motives & Misconceptions

“…and do you think really that he does that only from the bottom of his heart? Sure, they keep him armed to the teeth with all sorts of devices.”

I am not fool enough to believe that any nation or person does something from the “bottom of his heart”. That is why I make my decisions and form my opinions based on past actions. You always magically keep the US and Britain off the list of arms suppliers. Why is that? The US supplies over 50% of the arms to the world every year. They were an almost-exclusive supplier to Iraq for a dozen years. It is from us that he got much of his biological and chemical weaponry. Yet you speak as if France, etc. purveys the lion’s share of arms?

“About the oil, I really think that you are wrong …”

And I think that you are guilty of extremely wishful thinking. The Bush administration has already stated that they will consider at least a portion of Iraq’s oil as ‘spoils of war”, which will be used to pay for the “liberation”. it’s not like they”re beating around the bush about it. Wait and see.

“What you say, happened in the past; why not be optimistic and think that things this time around might even turn out right?”

There is a crucial dividing line between optimistic and naive. Read the news! I don’t make anything up here. The Bush administration allocated exactly $0 to rebuilding Afghanistan in the 2004 budget. That is quite a commitment. Congress voted to allocate some funds, but the Bush administration allocated $0! They also have the sheer balls to allocate $0 for the current war, as if it costs nothing. They just don’t want the budget to explode, so they stick their fingers in their ears and scream “nyah, nyah, I can’t hear you” as if it will make all the problems go away.

“He [Saddam] killed one million children. Marco, why pass it on so nonchalantly to the US with an undercurrent to this administration?”

I point you to my analogy above.

“…racist US military: for goodness sake how can you say that!”

Once again, members of the US military would be amused by your naivete. Remember the last Gulf war? I believe that saw the rise of the term “sand-nigger”. Remember Somalia? I can’t remember the term used there, but it’s quite well-documented that many of the civilian slayings there were racially-biased. Again, I don’t, in general, say things for which I cannot readily provide a relatively reputable source.

“How can one enjoy the show, when twenty years old get killed?”

You know, you’ve always just flat-out sucked at sarcasm.

“Maybe I should have taken more time to read more profoundly”

Home Stretch

The error you make is to allow most of your opinion to be built by others, instead of by your own acquisition of facts and analysis. The danger in operating purely on received opinion is that you will eventually no longer be able to remember why you believe what you do.

For example, in a matter of weeks, the US media has convinced you that the French are a snide, arrogant people without worth. That’s quite impressive. Centuries of philosophers and logical analysis and now, all of a sudden, they are nothing. They have dared to contradict the mighty, intellectual analyses of the Bush administration, so they must be stupid.

Do you really believe the sky is red?