Comments on: Why doesn’t the FARC hate the USA?

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:49:00 +0000

S2: I take my hat off to you. I hadn’t noticed those lines in that speech. Pushing it to say that he’s calling previous FP a ‘bloody awful mistake’, but essentially you’re right. On the specific case of South America, that kicked off all this here, I’d say Bush hasn’t confronted the past, though. He seriously wouldn’t have appointed Negroponte (three times) if he had.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:44:00 +0000

> I was objecting to S2 setting it up as an opinion which a vaguely mainstream British left-winger might hold. It isn't.

Well, that's certainly not what I wrote. I was making a comment about people's attitudes to international politics, using the views of one particular variety of idiot as an example. That being said, I know for a fact that such opinions are held by vaguely mainstream British left-wingers, not to mention some right-wingers, because I've met the bastards. But they're a minority, yes, and I never implied otherwise.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:24:00 +0000

"Your life must be really sheltered, Larry."

Well, if you number among your acquaintances lots of people who, when confronted with the large-scale mass-murder of civilians, conclude that the victims "had it coming", then I guess compared to yours S2, yes my life is pretty sheltered.

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:13:00 +0000

That’s "massive minority" as in "very very small number who are in the minority". Bad choice of adjective.

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:11:00 +0000

Oh yes, I fully agree that it’s a massive minority! I mean, even the likes of Chomsky don’t hold views like this (and he does seem to hold some pretty silly views upon occasion). I meant to add the word "pedantic" in the first post.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:08:00 +0000

"While it pains me to say it, there are some people…"

Ok. But not lots of people – it is a tiny peripheral (even extremist) position. I was objecting to S2 setting it up as an opinion which a vaguely mainstream British left-winger might hold. It isn’t.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:58:00 +0000

> Nonsense, only Al Qaeda supporters think that.

Wow. Your life must be really sheltered, Larry.

Jarndyce,

I wasn't being frivolous. It's been a repeating theme of Bush's speeches since very shortly after 9/11, so you really can find such claims spread all over Whitehouse.gov. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have noticed it. It's the main reason I support the guy.

Here's one example:

We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.

As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun.

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:43:00 +0000

While it pains me to say it, there are some people on the (I would sadly have to say very extreme) left-wing in US political thought (and no doubt elsewhere) who *do* think that the *individuals* in the twin-towers (et Pentagon) *personally* had it coming. The argument goes something along the lines of "They directly work for the financial and legal and military institutions that backup US power and screw over other countries, hence they are to blame". I cannot remember the name of the, I think, University of Arizona Professor (there was a NYT article about trying to get him sacked).

Anyway, needless to say, I don't agree! But I do agree with Larry: one can agree that US policy encouraged 9/11 in some sense, without supposing that the individuals who died "had it coming".

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:39:00 +0000

"Lots of people who think that the citizens killed in 9/11 kind of had it coming"

Nonsense, only Al Qaeda supporters think that. Lots of people however think that in some abstract sense *the US* had it coming. This might just mean that they thought that the sum effect of US foreign policy over the last few decades meant that a 9/11-type attack was very likely, (though not remotely justifiable). No-one outside minority extremist groups thinks that the lives of the people in the twin towers were forfeit.

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:25:00 +0000

S2: LOL, that’s lame. I don’t recall Bush ever claiming that current terrorism was partly stimulated by past US foreign policy or that past foreign policy was ‘a bloody awful mistake’, or even anything similar. You made the claim – you provide some proof. I don’t accept it til then. On the main point, I totally agree with you. It’s lazy nonsense to blame Bush for toppling Arbenz or Negroponte for installing Pinochet, and it’s all too common.