Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-04 Thread Tyler Durden
Tim May wrote...

To _this_ American, namely, me, it is apparent that Pax Americana is the 
goal. By my definition of rule, then, yes, America wants to rule much of 
the world. No, they don't want to micromanage the details. But they 
certainly want pliable governments that will not be _too_ democratic (as 
we don't want Islamists elected) and that will be cooperative with oil 
interests, military basing requests, etc.

And now that the U.S. is the world's only hyperpower and is willing to 
spend the money of its citizens in vastly expensive foreign wars, it has 
decided to launch pre-emptive wars to ensure cooperative governments.
Holy crap! I agree with this 100%. (Does this mean I'll soon be sitting by 
my window with a shotgun waiting for someone else's oxygen to stray onto my 
land?)

And this recent, more obvious militant approach by Bush  Co. is only the 
latest. As far as I can tell, we've been actively meddling in foreign 
governments since the early 1950s.

The Turkish Parliament's clear no in allowing our troops to launch attacks 
from Turkish soil is an important thing to watch. Note US and media sources 
as saying that Turkey supports the US in our actions (obviously because a 
couple of Turkish leaders spat out some conciliatory agit-prop that 'we' 
latched onto). If they start grabbing Kurdish oilfields or making or other 
trouble for us, watch something happen to de-ball that parliament in one way 
or another.

-TD








From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:11:28 -0800
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 07:05  PM, James A. Donald wrote:

--
On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:48, Mike Rosing wrote:
Which is why MAD works.  But a regular bombing run on a few
oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really
quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of
places that happen to be too close to Russia and China.
Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they
could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air
and land space for a limited attack.  The US won't use
nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of
argument.
If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use
conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat
from trying to rule the world.
This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is not
apparent -- at least not to the US.
What is to the US referring to? To the Bush Administration, to a majority 
of Congress, what?

To _this_ American, namely, me, it is apparent that Pax Americana is the 
goal. By my definition of rule, then, yes, America wants to rule much of 
the world. No, they don't want to micromanage the details. But they 
certainly want pliable governments that will not be _too_ democratic (as we 
don't want Islamists elected) and that will be cooperative with oil 
interests, military basing requests, etc.

And now that the U.S. is the world's only hyperpower and is willing to 
spend the money of its citizens in vastly expensive foreign wars, it has 
decided to launch pre-emptive wars to ensure cooperative governments.

It is economic imperialism, pure and simple. Not the kind that the lefties 
used to complain about, the so-called economic imperialism of McDonald's 
and Hollywood and Nike. No, this is the real kind of economic imperialism, 
where gunboats and bombers are used to implement regime change when there 
has been no demonstrated clear and present danger from a foreign state.

I see nothing in the United States Constitution that supports this 
interventionist, imperial policy. Certainly no libertarian should be 
supporting the use of national force to go and change the government of a 
distant country when its own people have failed to do so.

--Tim May

Getting to Tim May's house in Corralitos:
427 Allan Lane (MapQuest works well). 831-728-0152
From Santa Cruz, south on Highway 1. Take Freedom Boulevard exit in Aptos. 
Go inland, on Freedom Blvd.  Travel about 5 miles, to first stop sign. Take 
a left on Corralitos Road. At the the next stop sign, the Corralitos Market 
(good sausages!) will be on your left. Just before the stop sign, bear 
right on Brown's Valley Road. Cross bridge and then bear left as Brown's 
Valley Road turns. Travel about one mile to Allan Lane, on the right.

Allan Lane is at about the 360 mailbox point on Brown's Valley Road...if 
you go too far and enter the redwoods, turn back! Drive to top of hill on 
Allan Lane.  At top, bear left, over a small rise, past a house on the 
left, then down my driveway. My house will be the white stucco semi-Spanish 
style, with a red Explorer and black Mercedes in the driveway.

Note for parties: You can park either in my driveway or at the top of the 
hill and walk a few hundred feet. Don't block any driveways!

From points south of Santa Cruz, take Green Valley Road exit off of Highway 
1. Travel about 2 miles to Freedom Boulevard. Turn left. 

Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-04 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn
Tyler Durden wrote:

As far as I can tell, we've been actively meddling in foreign 
governments since the early 1950s. 
I haven't been; have you?  If not, then you shouldn't use the term we.

One of the mind games that state worshippers play on the populace is to 
get them to identify with the state -- and so emotionally defend its 
foreign adventures -- through the misuse of we when they really mean 
the government.



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-04 Thread Major Variola (ret)
At 09:56 AM 4/4/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:

If it was economic imperialism, they would have done Saudi
arabia.  Lots of stuff connnecting Saudi Arabia to the twin
towers.

All your Saudis are belong to us.  And we much prefer Saudi puppets
to IslamoFundies.   Problem is, of course, that it bugs some performance

artists that we own the place, ergo 9/11 (tm).

If it was holy war, in accordance Ann Coulter's program invade
their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to
Christianity, it would have been Sudan.

George didn't know where that was on the map.

It was Iraq.  Therefore ideological warfare, not economic
imperialism.

Means, motive, opportunity.

---
Beware foreign entanglements -G. Washington



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-04 Thread James A. Donald
--
On 2 Apr 2003 at 20:11, Tim May wrote:
 It is economic imperialism, pure and simple.

Obviously, after they failed to find Bin Laden or his corpse,
they needed to rip a new asshole in some unfortunate arab
regime.

If it was economic imperialism, they would have done Saudi
arabia.  Lots of stuff connnecting Saudi Arabia to the twin
towers.

If it was holy war, in accordance Ann Coulter's program invade
their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to
Christianity, it would have been Sudan.

It was Iraq.  Therefore ideological warfare, not economic
imperialism.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 6m8Zy521rRepAVrb3dETgXNWt9NDAvaYuajSTF57
 46THZypxYrrH7t2ctOrqdaFckSJzgnUviQzp4u4i0



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-03 Thread James A. Donald
--
   If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could 
   use conventional weapons and force the US to at least 
   retreat from trying to rule the world.

James A. Donald:
  This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is 
  not apparent -- at least not to the US.

Tim May
 What is to the US referring to? To the Bush Administration, 
 to a majority of Congress, what?

 To _this_ American, namely, me, it is apparent that Pax 
 Americana is the goal.

They believe their aim, Pax Americana, is a world of 
independent, moderately capitalist, democratic countries -- to 
do to the whole world what was done to Germany, Japan, and 
Napoleonic France.

Now I suspect, and doubtless many of the reluctant recipients 
of this generosity suspect, that this good intention will not 
lead to a good outcome -- that a bourgeois democracy cannot be 
created merely by force, that the actual outcome will merely be 
the imposition of a tyrant supposedly less dangerous to US 
interests -- imperialism.  Of course, the US ability to pick 
tyrants less dangerous to US interests is none too good.

However because the administration is certain in its own 
righteousness, a certainty not entirly implausible, mere 
outside force is unlikely to change the administration's 
program.  If the outside world should apply sterner measures, 
this is more likely to convince the administration, and a 
majority of Americans, that regime change in Paris is 
advisable, than to convince them that regime change in Baghdad 
is inadvisable.

 But they certainly want pliable governments that will not be 
 _too_ democratic (as we don't want Islamists elected) and 
 that will be cooperative with oil interests, military basing 
 requests, etc.

It seems probable that the majority of each Iraqi religious and 
racial group wil vote for the expulsion or liquidation of all 
the other groups, unless of course they all unite on the issue 
of war with Israel, in which case the US will wind up turning a 
blind eye to the suppression of democracy, as it has done in 
Kurdish areas.  But again, it is not obvious that genuine 
democracy will produce an outcome unacceptable to the US.  The 
Islamicist Iranian government could not win a fair and free 
election.   The US government and people's faith in the 
righteousness and feasibility of their program is not provably 
misplaced.   They do not think they are imperialists, and their 
sincerity is not obviously delusive.

 It is economic imperialism, pure and simple. Not the kind 
 that the lefties used to complain about, the so-called 
 economic imperialism of McDonald's and Hollywood and Nike. 
 No, this is the real kind of economic imperialism, where 
 gunboats and bombers are used to implement regime change 
 when there has been no demonstrated clear and present danger 
 from a foreign state.

Indeed its imperialism -- but I doubt it is economic.  This war 
is ideological.

The Baathist program is a combination of communism and nazism. 
The racial element of their program is to unite all arabic 
speaking people by force under a single supposedly charismatic 
leadership, so as to restore the rightful place of arabs in the 
world, subduing its non arab neighbors under arab rule -- a 
secular and socialist version of Bin Laden's program.

I suspect that had the US let nature take its course, the true 
horror of this program would have became apparent, and the 
united arab regime would eventually collapse in flames, after 
several decades of inflicting enormous horror on arabs and 
their immediate neighbors, and that during this period they 
would pump oil like mad to finance enormous war expenditure.

The flaw in the administration's program is not that it is 
driven by evil oil companies seeking to steal oil, or evil Jews 
seeking to steal land, but that it is driven by a dangerously 
great faith in democracy, a failure to realise that democracy 
does not work in general, that it has worked in some countries, 
some of the time, by a fortunate historical accident that 
arguably no longer applies even in those countries.

Now it may well turn out, probably will turn out, that when 
these idealistic ideas do not work out, the US government all 
too easily proceed to give the Israeli lobby what it wants,
contrary to US interests, but they do not think of themselves
as tools of the Zionist occupation forces.

 I see nothing in the United States Constitution that supports 
 this interventionist, imperial policy.

Everything the Federal government does except the post office, 
the patent office, and defence against imminent foreign threats 
is unconstitutional, and the post office and the patent office 
are bad ideas also.  Why should its activites in Iraq be 
different? 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 EgpO9WrR9/RWinkTF6JBYeh+W2fhmDrOdLqTtIU7
 4m9PM+4Fj9hF/SinIE8Hkns1d7Cqrk/tg31MB3T+x



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-03 Thread Tim May
On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 11:37  AM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

As far as I can tell, we've been actively meddling in foreign 
governments since the early 1950s.
I haven't been; have you?  If not, then you shouldn't use the term 
we.

One of the mind games that state worshippers play on the populace is 
to get them to identify with the state -- and so emotionally defend 
its foreign adventures -- through the misuse of we when they really 
mean the government.

Exactly.

(I don't claim to be perfect--there are times when I have used the 
words we and our in connection with the United States. But I've 
also used we and our in terms of what the Founders very obviously 
meant, in contrast to what later rulers like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and 
the rulers of the past 50 years have claimed to represent.)

One of the clearest statements of what libertarians usually support 
came from P.J. O'Rourke when he put it this way: Would you kill your 
grandmother for this?

Meaning, anytime a law or a foreign involvement is contemplated, ask 
oneself whether the law is just enough to warrant killing someone close 
to you for it. The implications for the vast number of bullshit laws we 
have in the U.S. (and worse in most parts of Europe) are clear, I think.

As for foreign wars, I don't support having tax collectors take my 
money (substantial amounts of it, but that's another topic) and use it 
to protect oil company interests or to engage in humanitarian efforts. 
If my neighbor wishes to contribute to the Ruwandans or the Iraqi 
Liberation Front, he is welcome to.

(Modulo the fact that Americans are no longer to fund the charities of 
their choosing, as a few hundred citizens in indefininate detention can 
attest to, were they able to speak to lawyers or others.)

--Tim May



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-03 Thread Bill Frantz
At 11:54 AM -0800 4/3/03, Tim May wrote:
If my neighbor wishes to contribute to the Ruwandans or the Iraqi
Liberation Front, he is welcome to.

Operation Iraqi Liberation has a better acronym.

Cheers - Bill


-
Bill Frantz   | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA



Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism

2003-04-03 Thread Tyler Durden
This is an important point, and begs the obvious question: Are we 
responsible for what our government does?

(Let me push Tyler away from the keyboard...fortunately he seems to be most 
active when I am asleep...)

If I pay my taxes, aren't I to some extent funding the war effort?

Of course, one could make the argument If I don't pay I'll go to 
jail...well the easy reply is you should go to jail or move to another 
country rather than pay your taxes to fuck over other countries and their 
people.

Clearly, the September 11th 'Pilots' (are you still called a pilot if you 
never felt the need to learn how to land a plane?) believed rather firmly 
that regular US citizens -are- responsible for the actions of their 
government. And indeed, it might be argued that our duty as moral humans is 
to overthrow or attempt to undermine a regime from which we (well, some of 
us) clearly benefit, but which does so at the expense of others. Indeed, 
don't we Americans often flippantly say They should overthrow their 
government...?

(Tyler clearly believes this...somehow, when he gets talking like this he 
seems ever more 'real', and that's when he starts yammering about being the 
'real' Tyler Durden, whatever the hell that means.)

Is peaceful change, etc... possible? I'd like to think so. However, there 
may come a point where peaceful solution is really just a lazy dream 
designed to permit us to ignore our responsibility...

There may be a third option, of which crypto is a part. This is more 
re-evolutionary in that it represents slow steps towards change that can 
possibly be resisted for a short while but in the long run demands that 
resistors step out of the way or get squashed. In this sense, Crypto is 
'peaceful' as long as its not resisted too strongly. It itself (as opposed 
to what it carries) becomes some form of armament only by the power of the 
resistors. Perhaps, then, working on the proliferation of such tools is 
partly enough to exonerate one from responsibility for what 'we' are doing 
overseas.

-Jack






From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Foreign adventures and economic imperialism
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:54:55 -0800
On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 11:37  AM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

As far as I can tell, we've been actively meddling in foreign governments 
since the early 1950s.
I haven't been; have you?  If not, then you shouldn't use the term we.

One of the mind games that state worshippers play on the populace is to 
get them to identify with the state -- and so emotionally defend its 
foreign adventures -- through the misuse of we when they really mean 
the government.

Exactly.

(I don't claim to be perfect--there are times when I have used the words 
we and our in connection with the United States. But I've also used 
we and our in terms of what the Founders very obviously meant, in 
contrast to what later rulers like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and the rulers of 
the past 50 years have claimed to represent.)

One of the clearest statements of what libertarians usually support came 
from P.J. O'Rourke when he put it this way: Would you kill your 
grandmother for this?

Meaning, anytime a law or a foreign involvement is contemplated, ask 
oneself whether the law is just enough to warrant killing someone close to 
you for it. The implications for the vast number of bullshit laws we have 
in the U.S. (and worse in most parts of Europe) are clear, I think.

As for foreign wars, I don't support having tax collectors take my money 
(substantial amounts of it, but that's another topic) and use it to protect 
oil company interests or to engage in humanitarian efforts. If my neighbor 
wishes to contribute to the Ruwandans or the Iraqi Liberation Front, he is 
welcome to.

(Modulo the fact that Americans are no longer to fund the charities of 
their choosing, as a few hundred citizens in indefininate detention can 
attest to, were they able to speak to lawyers or others.)

--Tim May


_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail