A-m-e-r-i-k-a, Meiner Lieber Herr?

While you have a number of nifty gambits in your trick bag. the name calling and putting words in someone's mouth are not your best. The Cold War shibboleth of Communism always works though.

What would be the appropriate policy towards Cuba? Let's see we have embargoed the country for 40 years, tried repeatedly to murder Castro with exploding cigars and toxic wetsuits and other contraptions. We have supported groups of Cubans who have repeatedly attacked Cuba from American ports of call and attacked any moderate Cubans who would offer alternative strategies (much of the antagonism fostered at the behest of foreign policy geniuses like Jesse Helms). And we have annexed Guantanamo which is sovereign Cuban soil. Could we have done worse?

I humbly suggest that we might that we end the embargo. Who knows what might happen?

The enemies of the Cuban Revolution that I am talking about are the arm chair -nesting, cable news-watching quarterbacks who say they care about human rights in Havana but are indifferent to thuggery and human rights violations in Miami and other places (Do the names Jorge Mas Canosa and CANF {the Cuban American National Foundation} ring a bell?)

And. wowee zowie, now the Iraqi people need liberation and democracy and all the good things that Hallburton and Bechtel can give them.

I would not call the Cuban dissidents "enemies of the Revolution" (even if the Cuban security apparatus does) just as I would not call Senators Kerry and Daschele un-American and unpatriotic for their remarks and questions about the conduct of US foreign policy.

If you believe that American foreign policy is conducted with any concern for human rights other than a public relations, I await your tutelage on this. Currently, I am under the sway of a belief that American foreign policy is a continuation of imperial conceits and values that go back as far as at least the presidency of the first Roosevelt. While you are instructing me please help me (and perhaps others) by pointing out to how many nations the US has brought democracy.

I hope that this is a clear statement. I am against oppression and repression by both governments of the Left and of the Right. I am for free expression and social and economic justice. I am against tyranny in Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Panama, Central Africa, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, both Koreas, Myrannar,Turkey, Cyprus, Israel…and in the United States.

Posted by: Robert Birnbaum on April 6, 2003 11:38 AM

Robert is for "free expression"? Except Friedrich's? Free expression as long as it agrees with you? No wonder you like Fidel!

Posted by: annnette on April 6, 2003 11:59 AM

P.S.--Jon---given your skepticism at the effectiveness of Red Cross inspections---I guess then you agree with the Bush Administration about weapons inspections actually containing Saddam and Iraq? Because your argument---that they don't work, that inspectors are too easily fooled--is Bush & Blair & Co.'s EXACT same argument. You see that, right?

Posted by: annette on April 6, 2003 12:17 PM

"While you are instructing me please help me (and perhaps others) by pointing out to how many nations the US has brought democracy."

Let's see, of the top of my head:

Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, South Korea, Taiwan, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo...

I might be missing a few. And note that I'm just listing the countries where there was direct militiary or political intervention by the US, not places where it merely encouraged indigingeous movements (like eastern europe) or allowed democratization to happen under benign neglect (like Spain or the Phillipines)...

Posted by: jimbo on April 6, 2003 12:25 PM

"Fuck you, Tipper Gore!!!"
-Eminem

Posted by: Dick Cheney on April 6, 2003 12:45 PM

Annette

What makes you think I'm against the invasion of Iraq?

If I were to say that I'm in favour of Iraqi invasion, and that the weapons inspectors were ineffectual (and I have at no point expressed an opinion either way), will you agree that the US military may be electrocuting the genitals of the illegally detained in Guantanamo?

France is holding weapons of mass destruction, and have purposely blocked any attempt to invade Iraq by the Coalition. When is the push into Calais planned, only I'm going in 2 weeks and need to know.

Where did Robert say he liked Fidel? I missed that part completely. I only noticed 'I am against tyranny in Cuba...'. And if he were against free expression for Friedrich as you imply, wouldn't he be better employed in a Denial of Service on this website than entering the fray of debate?

And Jimbo? Well, I'm willing to give you 24 hours to retract your farcical list before ridiculing it, others may not be so kind.

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 6, 2003 1:29 PM

Birnbaum writes:

"I hope that this is a clear statement. I am against oppression and repression by both governments of the Left and of the Right. I am for free expression and social and economic justice. I am against tyranny in Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Panama, Central Africa, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, both Koreas, Myrannar,Turkey, Cyprus, Israel…and in the United States."

This is very clear: it is worse than moral equivalence. To state that "I am against tyranny in both Koreas" and then proceed to attack the record of South Korea as a defense against someone attacking the record of North Korea is to be in favor of more tyranny. This is exactly what Birnbaum does to Friedrich regarding the US and Cuba. If you are against tyranny, you should look for tyrants. If, in the name of “balance” you attack tyrannies and democracies equally, you are supporting and perpetuating tyranny.

Whenever arguing with the likes of Birnbaum (Cuba=Miami) or Pardoe (Iraqi POW treatment = US POW treatment). I draw out a long number line on a piece of paper. At the left end I place a 0, and at the right end I place a 100. On a percentile scale of human rights, standard of living and a dozen other measures of the good life, Iraq and Cuba are at 0. The US is at 100. If we re-scaled the number line to go from absolute Hell to absolute Heaven, Iraq might be a 10, and the US a 90. If the person I am arguing with places Cuba and the US fairly close to each other on this line, there is generally no basis on which to have a constructive argument.

And regarding "Is the Fidel Castro regime the only repressive one the world?" This is a defense? If you give to a charity of your choice, are you to be faulted for not giving to EVERY charity that may exist?

Posted by: Paul Mansour on April 6, 2003 2:28 PM

"Fuck you Miss Cheney!!!"
-Eminem

Posted by: Tipper Gore on April 6, 2003 3:27 PM

"Whenever arguing with the likes of Birnbaum (Cuba=Miami) or Pardoe (Iraqi POW treatment = US POW treatment). I draw out a long number line on a piece of paper. At the left end I place a 0, and at the right end I place a 100. On a percentile scale of human rights, standard of living and a dozen other measures of the good life, Iraq and Cuba are at 0. The US is at 100. If we re-scaled the number line to go from absolute Hell to absolute Heaven, Iraq might be a 10, and the US a 90. If the person I am arguing with places Cuba and the US fairly close to each other on this line, there is generally no basis on which to have a constructive argument."

Your scale, of course, is valid throughout history and transcends all personal and cultural differences. However invalid the equivalence between the US and certain dictatorships, it's equally wrong to claim that every dictatorship occupies the same moral space.

"And regarding "Is the Fidel Castro regime the only repressive one the world?" This is a defense? If you give to a charity of your choice, are you to be faulted for not giving to EVERY charity that may exist?"

There is always a reason--conscious or no--for one choice over others, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why a particular choice has been made.

Posted by: gavril on April 6, 2003 4:24 PM

"Whenever arguing with the likes of Birnbaum (Cuba=Miami) or Pardoe (Iraqi POW treatment = US POW treatment)"

Hang on a second, at no point did I say that the US was mistreating any POWs in Iraq. I specifically sited Guantanamo, mostly becasue of the delicious irony that it's in Cuba, thus leading nicely back to original point.

The point I was making was that the 'Illegal Combatants' are classified as just that, and not POWs. If they were, they would be subject to trial in a military court, giving them rights that they don't at the moment have. They'd also be protected by the Geneva Convention. Which they aren't.

I don't doubt for a moment that the Iraqi POWs are in fact being treated fairly, and to the letter of Geneva. Let's face it, there's too much of a media presence there for it to be any different. Any sort of impropriety and the next thing you know the US would have it's ass hauled before the International Criminal Court. Oh, sorry, they wouldn't, would they.

"If, in the name of “balance” you attack tyrannies and democracies equally, you are supporting and perpetuating tyranny. "

What? Did you read that before you posted? So, if any tyrannies exist, then no mention should be made of the behaviour of democracies until such a point that tyranny has been wiped from the face of the earth. Sorry, I didn't realise. My bad.

In your world, does everything "=" something else if you are having an 'argument' (I prefer discussion) with someone who doesn't share your worldview. Maybe that's what the 'tyranny' of pledging allegiance to the flag has done to you.

Mr Mansour would be better employed understanding other people's point of view correctly than drawing lines on bits of paper.

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 6, 2003 6:20 PM

Brothers and Sister(s):

I am currently consulting my Calculus of Moral Quantification but I have a gut feeling that moral obtuseness falls below moral equivalence on the scale of degradation.

Also, I am attempting to employ the straight-line solution with other vexing issues. Who knew resolving life's dilemmas could be so simple, easy and efficient?

Posted by: ROBERT BIRNBAUM on April 6, 2003 6:32 PM

If I point out that the Iraqi army shoots conscripts in the back of the head if they won’t go to the front line, it is a non-sequitur to counter that that the US army violates the rights of homosexuals to serve openly. The difference between the two violations of rights is so great that to argue like this can only be interpreted as support for tyranny. Similarly, when Friedrich points out that Castro has rounded up and jailed a bunch of academics, it is meaningless to counter that there are human rights violations in Miami.

Non of this is to suggest that the US is immune from criticism (Indeed, I spend a lot of my time doing just that!) My point is that criticism of real or imagined human rights violations by the US when used as an argument to make less of explicit and gross violations of human rights by a despotic regime can only be viewed as support for tyranny, or blind hatred of the US. Clearly, if you do not accept that there is an order-of-magnitude difference between the US and Cuba on human rights, you will not be sympathetic to my point.

Posted by: Paul Mansour on April 7, 2003 11:52 AM

I don't like using capitals very often, but I feel compelled to do so in the slight hope that Mr Mansour will pay attention

GUANTANAMO BAY

Not Iraq. OK?

And who's making less of the countless atrocities commited by the nations you mention. I'm not. I just think you don't like what I'm trying to say, so are skirting the issue.

I don't hate the US (blindly or otherwise). I don't support despotic regimes. But most importantly I don't think that because one regime is 'worse' than another that the lesser of these human rights violators (and I consider the Death Penalty a huge violation of human rights for example. And that whole Guantanamo thing that you refuse to acknowledge) should be let off the hook.

Or perhaps you think the Police should stop concerning themselves with burglary calls because murder is an order-of magnitude worse?

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 7, 2003 2:11 PM

Where are the puppetmasters?

I don't know where this order of magnitude red herring came from? One would clearly be a jackass to suggest that Cuba and the US are the same. But that is not what is being said. When a Cuban dissident gets thrown in jail for 20 years in Cuba and Cuban moderates in Miami are firebombed, intimidated and threatened ,harassed, what is the relevance of which country is better, to the victims of these acts?

Anyway, I've had such fun solving all the world's problems with my new all purpose straight line gizmo (with the sliding scale) I am ready for more instruction.This caught my attention:

None of this is to suggest that the US is immune from criticism (Indeed, I spend a lot of my time doing just that!)

Mr Mansour, please share some of your concerns about the US.

Posted by: Robert Birnbaum on April 7, 2003 5:35 PM

I may be being a naive fool here, but I have a hunch that Paul Mansour: "If you are against tyranny, you should look for tyrants. If, in the name of “balance” you attack tyrannies and democracies equally, you are supporting and perpetuating tyranny." may be spot on. How I understood it, Paul isn't at all meaning any exclusive "stop this evil, not that evil" by this advice. He is simply indicating *priority*, in that, for example obviously we don't *want* people to be put in prison, since it restricts their freedom, but we *do* want the general public to be convinced that crime is being dealt with - otherwise (unless everyone happens to be anarchist) most people would be profoundly unhappy that murderers were being left unpunished - not to mention society would probably break down. Thus we 'compromize' - we side with the calls for justice against the murderer and put the murderer in prison, even though it reduces freedom. In the same way, although I personally was against the war, since it was against international law, now I recognise I should support the war, since otherwise I am interfering wih the elimination of the worst tyranny - Iraqis fighting in the name of a personality cult - even though supporting the war means supporting the lesser tyranny of a globally dominant US and anti-democratic President Bush. Hopefully this gets to he crux of the matter. It seems to me that agreement with the above pro-war argument (after consideration of opinions and data from Guardian Unlimited, Indy Media, etc.) hinges finally more on (I hessitate to use this term, because it has such exclusive connotations) world view than additional facts. I have taken what I call the "subtle moral absolutist" view, since otherwise I suspect I could remain in a sea of confusion where I still am unsure of whether to oppose war with Iraq - only convinced of Both Sadaam's and Bush's guilt. I suspect if you disagree with me, you have the "subtle moral relativist" view - don't get me wrong - I'm not dishing you - both alternatives have a mix of relativist and absolutist moral principles - I'm just suggesting you reassess your 'world view' to consider whether it's true of you.

Posted by: rob-theevilbrit on April 8, 2003 2:02 PM

Rob

Thankyou for being a similarly evil Brit.

Your post put into mind the guy that stand in the middle of two drunken friends outside a pub. And for me you have performed the task admirably.

I purposely never stated an opinion about the war because I felt it would colour my subsequent posts, and I feel I am justifed in sill not stating it. It is exactly that attitudue I feel is poisoning world politics at the moment.

Cheers for being a voice of reason

I'm still dissapointed that not a single US poster has picked me up on Guantanamo though...

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 8, 2003 8:52 PM

Jon:

I LOOKED BACK AT MY ARCHIVED JOURNAL
CALLED a reader's progress. I wrote this in February 2003:

Every season brings welcome tidings of the largesse that I am soon to benefit from by way of books sent to me by book publishers. Mostly this comes in the form of catalogues. Occasionally cleverly or handsomely designed, this cornucopia of literature provides hope, at least in the short term, of an interesting and radiant future. This Spring (it's already Spring /Summer) has not been much different. Many good books, some by accomplished authors, some by lucky novices who have managed to win the publisher's lottery, will be on their way to me.

One catalogue, in particular, stopped me in my tracks. The New Press, that honorable house that Andre Schiffrin founded in 1990 after he was somewhat unceremoniously ousted from his sinecure at Pantheon Books, featured on its cover a harrowing—and to me a physically nauseating photograph (not credited) of the "prisoners" being held at Guantanemo (ironies abound; this is the military base we refuse to relinquish to Cuba, the sovereign nation it is part of—instead choosing to pay some paltry rental fee, the check for which Fidel Castro has never cashed in over forty years). Here are the details: a group of about ten kneeling, shackled men in orange jump suits, wearing orange knit caps, gloves, goggles, noise muffs over their ears and masks over their mouths in a chain-linked compound with barbed wire on the top of the fences.

I am going to forego the litany of images of atrocities that I am familiar with—from Nazi concentration camps to post-gassing Kurdistan—this photograph of what I assumed were human beings in the custody of the United States government sickened me. In an infosphere rife with American exceptionalism, I ought not have expected that the functionaries of the government would also be excepted from the cruel demands of the so-called war on terrorism. But that is what I expected. I don't hold the US government—whose foreign policy I have been pathologically critical of since I was introduced to it in my studies and in my life—to be worse than other imperial regimes, but I have never been able to accept perpetrating what we condemn in others.

Posted by: ROBERT BIRNBAUM on April 8, 2003 9:01 PM

Robert

Your last post is to me little short of perfect.

Sadly I still think that other posters here will disagree with you. None of them will mention Guantanamo by name, in fear that Google will at some point link them to this debacle by association

As a last thought, has anyone considered the acronym for The War Against Terror? I imagine that only Brits will find this funny.
Jon

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 9, 2003 8:19 PM

Jon--I MENTIONED GUATANAMO BAY--did the caps get through? You're response to my query was rather ineffective, given that you provide no factual back-up, although it sounds clever. Which might be the only time in this comment thread you sounded clever--so congrats.

Posted by: annette on April 13, 2003 11:11 PM

Annette

In what way was my response ineffective?

I provided a hyperlink to this...The Red Cross have just baulked at the lack of any grounds for their continued imprisonment

, which if you didn't know to click on the highlighted text, can be found at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2671287.stm

Do you think that it's acceptable to imprison people without grounds and not give a timescale for trial, release or even proper accusation to be made?

Isn't that what they used to do in Iraq? Please take the opportunity at this stage to counter that they are a threat to Homeland Security. It’s exactly what Saddam would have said, after all.

Or was it that I didn't counter effectively to your comment directly comparing the Weapons Inspectors and the Red Cross? Only, I did see your point of view, and actually agreed with you, even going to the point of identifying another target for the coalition, only this time I hyperlinked to the 'smoking gun', that being the Weapons of Mass Destruction held by France, who, in putting up an opposition to the invasion of Iraq without proof of WMD are quite obviously a rogue state.

But this all seems a little hollow, now that the war is effectively over and the full horror of the extent of Iraq's potential destructive power has been revealed, and I have been proven a churlish fool for making such a trite comparison.

Only, it hasn't.

Oh dear.

PS. If anyone who knows me types 'jon pardoe' into Google, they get a link to these comments! On the first page!! (although admittedly at 9th position). Cheers, Fredreich and Michael. After that, if I'm ever in LA, the drinks are on me!

I dare anyone to type 'Annette' into Google and check out 9th place. Please don't do it at work!

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 15, 2003 7:38 PM

jon's a cock

Posted by: Tom Browning on April 20, 2003 11:28 AM

Cock

Posted by: moonshine bob on April 20, 2003 11:29 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?