What choice do we have?

People are going to respond that this statement indicates that I approve of this. Approval or disapproval has nothing to do with it.

The U.S. is the world's preeminent military, economic and political power. Everything in the world revolves around this power. This is a function of our enormous success. Our success dictates this result.

No presidential candidate, Democrat or Republic, will be able to change this.

The way this post is phrased suggests that some sort of moral choice is available. It also suggests that we could make some other choice.

Morals have nothing to do with it. We have no other choice. We must and will guarantee the survival of Israel. The West financed and built just about everything that those Middle Eastern countries have. We must and will guarantee that investment.

So, go ahead and beat up on ourselves. We are the big bully on the block. That's who we are. We won that position through our incredible success. None of this is going to go away because of great political or moral arguments.

To argue otherwise is the same thing as that old political conundrum... the end of private property. For centuries, it was argued that if private property was only liberated and owned by the state, all of our problems would disappear. We tried that and it failed.

Applying great moral solutions, or even great political solutions to the reality of U.S. dominance and Middle Eastern failure does absolutely nothing except make those who propose such solutions feel good.

Some fatalism is called for here. This is what we are. It's the burden we bear for succeeding in the way that the rest of the world can only dream about. That burden cannot be shrugged off, without incredibly disastrous results. Sure, it feels bad to have to play Big Boss Man, but that's what we are.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on May 6, 2008 8:48 AM

Michael, I apologize in advance for beating up on this.

It's time to re-read King Lear. Lear wanted to just dump the responsibilities and problems of power and wealth, and he wanted people to like him. In his senility, he believed that if he was just magnanimous and charitable, everything would work out.

White liberal men have been playing out this King Lear fantasy for 50 years. I'm tired of it, not just on a practical level because of the results, but on an aesthetic level as well.

As I've said before, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when a white man who is as greedy for power, wealth and adulation as Lebron James appears on the scene. I'm thoroughly fed up with the self-abnegation of white men. The King Lear bit... laying down and giving up... that epitomizes white men for the past 50 years... just makes me want to puke.

War and conflict are just parts of the human condition. They are not going to go away so that world hunger or global warming can be solved. These issues will be solved by simple human ingenuity, the will to survive, and some clever bastard's understanding of how to profit by fixing a problem.

I really don't give a fuck about these "problems" that could be solved for the "cost of the Iraq War." Those "problems" will be solved over a period of time one way or another.

While other men are dreaming of conquest, glory, getting all the women and producing a shitload of babies... white liberal men are playing King Lear. I know that you think that you are doing this for some sort of thoughtful reason. Sorry, I just think that you're abdicating because you don't like the weight of the load.

Stop being so damned reasonable.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on May 6, 2008 9:46 AM

None of this is going to go away because of great political or moral arguments.

No, it's going to go away because it's unsustainable. We can see it off in a sober, rational, adult way, with forethought for the far future (you know, manfully), guarding our fundamental interests and breaking the sway of the corruptocrats, or we can party on until the repo men show up.

An "incredible success" whose domestic economy and infrastructure is crumbling, whose military is woefully overstretched and exhausted, and who can only continue the charade of being Big Boss Man by going massively in debt to his international rivals, is a deluded fool.

There're a lot of good lessons in Lear. But "a wise and loyal leader should pauperize his nation and deliver its citizens into the hands of their foes" is a mighty odd reading.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 6, 2008 11:51 AM

We're in Iraq because of our utter and profound weakness. Cheney was over in Saudia Arabia not too long ago on his knees all lubed up begging for more oil. We don't have to be cheap whores for oil. Even a clapped out old girl like the US can change her ways. If we're going to spend a few trillion spend it here: nukes, solar, nukes, wind, conservation, infrastructure, etc.

Also, Israel is all grown up now and can move out of our basement. We owe nothing to nobody.

Posted by: Bhh on May 6, 2008 12:47 PM

"Morals have nothing to do with it. We have no other choice. We must and will guarantee the survival of Israel. The West financed and built just about everything that those Middle Eastern countries have. We must and will guarantee that investment."

"As I've said before, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when a white man who is as greedy for power, wealth and adulation as Lebron James appears on the scene."

In light of the first quote and with special emphasis on your generous,perpetual security assurance for Israel, I think your wait is over, ST. In fact its been over for quite some time, catch a wake up and see if anyone comes to mind. King Lear indeed.

Posted by: Happy Talk on May 6, 2008 1:40 PM

The purpose of the invasion of Iraq does have to do with oil.

But not to get at it and use it. The purpose is to shut the spigot off--to control and cap oil production to keep world oil prices high.

If you spend a bit of time researching the oil business, you will find the ever-present theme of creating monopolies and oligopolies in order to restrict supply and drive up prices. From Standard Oil, to the Texas Railroad Commission, to OPEC, and to the funding of the environmental movement (to put land off limits to drilling and production), Big Oil has always been rigging the game to fill their pockets while you fill your tank.

And the US military is being used to restrict the oil supply from Iraq, because Saddam was pumping too much oil. That's the real truth.

Remember that as the price of oil goes well over $120 a barrel. What was it five years ago, $30 or $40 a barrel?

Posted by: BIOH on May 6, 2008 2:38 PM

If we're going to spend a few trillion spend it here: nukes, solar, nukes, wind, conservation, infrastructure, etc.

Bhh - I read that line as "nukes, solar nukes..."

Yes! Solar nukes, wind nukes, green nukes for everybody!

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 6, 2008 3:03 PM

"We must and will guarantee the survival of Israel." Why?

Posted by: Marmalade Explosion on May 6, 2008 6:06 PM

Brewster's Billions

Posted by: James on May 6, 2008 6:35 PM

In much the same way, we _had_ to keep the Marines in Central America, to ensure the flow of bananas. If we had pulled them out - say in 1934 -
we would have no bananas today.

Posted by: gcochran on May 7, 2008 5:33 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?