Re: [PEN-L] World Order, Failed States and Terrorism

[soula avramidis]

I also understand how war and aggression is sold to the American people under the guise of 'humanitarian bombing.' But and there is always a but.. Henry starts from the wrong point in Iraqi history, a point that American war propagandist like.. including Chomsky, which is quite unfortunate. A point that is meant to vilify saddam as a pretext to kill the people of Iraq. There is in the inherent structure of the near east so much trailing from the first and second world wars that it becomes difficult to relegate historical agency to the post colonial state as a state per se or to the heads of those states.. reduce to absurdity. Arab People in the Near East are not allowed to participate period, history is made from the outside. One may say that in this context of Iran nukes it may be possible to allow iran to own a few heads but not really democratise... the ultimate weapon of imperialism against the people of the region is the instalaation of despotic regimes,, that take the spirit out of man.

 

But I have a question that may be only slightly related to that context, take the case of an Arab Ph.D. student at an American University who more or less has this thesis:

Arabs spend 50 billion a year in the US creating jobs for Americans and the US spends 10 billion on Israel making Americans lose jobs.

from a closed accounting perspective he is somewhat right, worst yet that could make intervention on the side of Israel an act of benevolence towards the Jews and not one that is driven by capital's interest.

now when argues that the petrodollar cycle and control of oil are relevant to US capital on a global scale, the point was put back by the mainstream that this was diabolical economics.

now all one has to do is open the accounts, talk about global dolarization and capital flows to the US i.e. global accounting of capital flows, then a case can be made but it will not be easy to explain or is it?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 2/5/2005 2:03:39 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

>Also in "Iraq rebuilds, with a little US help" he started with "A ceasefire agreement between Iraq and Iran was signed on August 20, 1988. Iraq then rebuilt its military capability with bank credits and technology from Western Europe and the United States, financed mostly by Saudi Arabia." Now that is a selective periodisation and an utter lack of knowledge of Iraqi history. there is a discontinuity that is not supported by fact.. Some would say that the US and the Gulf turned against Saddam because he ended the war with Iran. Imperialism was very cozy with the ongoing conflict and the stubbornness of the Mullahs of Iran because that usurped the wealth of the region. but that is one point.. what is more relevant is to trace historical development back to 1958 when Iraq moved into a soviet orbit. that is a change worth contemplating and where events fall better in place..<

 

Comment

 

Henry C.K. recent article to the Asia Times contains its own self contained framework, which in my opinion, is clearly spelt out. From the standpoint of the Bush administration, the war against the people in Iraq is not a war against the people of Iraq but a humanitarian act, with collateral damage, to further freedom, justice and the American way. At any rate, this is what is told to the peoples of America concerning America's imperial policy.

 

The concept of "failed states" is not Henry's conception of the world but rather an examination of "failed states" as ideological proclamation, political and economic policy put forth by imperial authority.

 

In respects to America, China and the Soviets Henry states:

 

>>Toward the end of the Cold War, conflicting geopolitical state interests were overwhelming ideology disputes, driving communist China toward strategic convergence with the capitalist US against Soviet imperialism, in response to the Soviet alliance with anti-communist India against China. Localized ongoing superpower ideological wars by proxy states were wound down and local political struggles were frozen to avoid superpower conflict escalating into nuclear exchanges.<<

 

Further, when Henry states:

 

>In former Yugoslavia, a former Soviet bloc state, ethnic strife has embroiled NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) members, primarily the US, in humanitarian intervention.<

 

 . . . I understood this to be a description of how imperial America views itself and its policy, rather than a personal profession of ones political and ideological beliefs. The Clinton administration painted its goal and intervention in Yugoslavia as an act of humanitarian aid.  

 

Melvin P.

 

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'