1.09.2008

Troubled Times

I have been researching quite a bit as of late, a knee jerk reaction to a debate that almost always spawns investigation. In my travels I came across global legal discussions about the ramifications of Bush invading Iraq, and bringing the notion of "preemptive self defense" to the international table.

What I found most interesting, and troubling was the idea that international intervention would take a hit because of the US's decision to invade and attack another country preemptively, and without consent of the UN. The general idea is that the international community as a whole are feeling a great deal more cautious about countries sending military support over to other countries - even if it is needed or warranted. On an individual level I just happened to read an article about this very subject (after having stumbled upon the legal discussion). South Africa needs help, military intervention possibly, and yet they are wary of the US joining in to help because - of all things - they are afraid of neo-colonization by the US.

I read that and my jaw hit the floor. We, the bloggers and like minded folks who have been crowing and raving about repercussions echoing over the world because of America's bad behavior, are vindicated.

Thats nothing to be ecstatic about, its a bad thing and no matter how good it feels to be right, it aint good.

So, countries in need are now afraid of the big bad US - and not because our military might would be aimed at ne'er do wells, not because our economic globalization is so impressive, but because our military might and economic domination combined with the unscrupulous and unethical heads of state means bad news for any country who might fall prey to the giant lady with a torch in her hand.

Even on the morning news I heard Madeleine Albright state just how badly our reputation has become. If thats not ironic, I'm not sure what is.

I can't help but think though, that while this latest debacle has certainly caused global scrutiny and controversy - the military and international interventions on behalf of the US over the years has been less than altruistic. Its been well hidden, much better so than our current situation, however our actions over many years have been to serve the US and the US only. This now dawning on the (previously) unaffected parts of the world and mingling with parts of the world that have felt the stinging blow of American Imperialization have created the kind of foreign nightmare that won't be easily rectified.

The new president won't over come it, and perhaps it will take a large number of new presidents to undo it. Its my theory that it won't happen. The cat's out of the bag now - it's too late to "unlearn" our dirty little secrets. All politics will be out in the open, and quite frankly if the US can't imperialize, attack or otherwise arm foreign countries to goad them to war - we can't survive economically. We've sold off our production lines and manufacturing companies, we've all but done away with anything that could stabilize our economy, all we have left is the finance industry really - and according to economic grand poo-bahs such as Greenspan and Bogle, thats going up in smoke too.


In other news, I have taken what I am now learning, the combination of economic growth (or lack thereof), UN dealings, rulings etc...unrevised American history and etc...and I'm writing a book about it. I will be looking to get it published by a smaller publishing company (such as AK press - an Anarchist company, imagine that!). If all you writers out there have any advice, I'll take it!

5 comments:

Rafael said...

Empire is:

The Constant and Predatory Acquisition of Wealth.

When that stops, the beast starves and then dies.

an average patriot said...

Anok
There is nothing hidden about what Bush is really doing while he routinely says one thing to hide what he is really doing. if there are elections and they are not stolen the next pres will have to clean up Bush's Nazification program here and around the world.
I really can't see a Dem being allowed in being that Bush was allowed to progress so far with this. With Bush having set the standard of preemptive strikes we better hope as the world is uniting to take us on that they do not come to the conclusiong that we are overextended and weakened to the point that the world should make a preemptive strike on us.
This friggen future that bush guaranteed for us, oh man and the friggen idiot is proud of himself shit!

Anok said...

Rafael - Yup, thats whats a gonna happen. Just like Rome.

Jim, you said it. A schoolyard bully can only stay a bully so long as;

A) The other kids stay scared of the bully and all of his threats - known or unknown

B) The other kids don't see any signs of weakness (re: over extension of economy, military)

C) The other kids don't get together and gang up on said bully, and

D) There isn't another bully around who is bigger and meaner.

I think we are seeing the end of free lunch money and the sweet position at the top of the monkey bars.

Renegade Eye said...

The international intervention concept is lame. The UN has always been military surrogates for US policy. Nothing about the UN joining the Iraq intervention, would have made it better.

Anok said...

Why is it lame? I absolutely disagree that the UN is nothing more than the long arm of the US and its policy. If that were the truth then there would have been far more than only four countries (including the US) that backed the US-UK led invasion. Instead they shunned the idea - and three of the five permanent seats made it perfectly clear that the UN resolution 1441 was not a license for the US to use force by adding the proviso to it before it was passed.

I think the UN is so careful about the use of force that had it backed an invasion, that would be saying something. That would be the reassurance that everyone needed with regards to the Iraq war and its validity.

My complaint with the UN right now is that it hasn't sanctioned the US for its clear defiance of UNSCR 1454 - requesting compliance from all countries to abstain from the use of force until the 180 day extension was up, and the UN decided it was lacking. (The US had deployed ships to Iraq just one week after this resolution had been put into place). Or for instigating an illegal war.

Sometimes the UN is too soft and slow to act. But hell, at the very least they could issue sanctions - or a slap on the wrist.