Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Comment on: "The Man With Pink Hair" by Thomas Friedman, NYT, Sept. 18,2013
For the full Friedman editorial, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html?comments#permid=102
Overall, for the first time in some time, I agree with the general thrust of Mr. Friedman's column: bombing Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons, when acknowledging that this would to little to nothing to stop such use of chemical weapons, was ridiculous, and the push to attack was by the top elite (beholden to the Military/Industrial Complex), and vehemently opposed by the majority of "us".
However, even here Mr. Friedman cannot keep himself from including the typical myopic, that is to say American-centric view of the world, when one would expect a much broader perspective from a "journalist".
"I guess worrying about Syria is the tax you pay for being an American or an American president — and coming from the world’s strongest power that still believes, blessedly in my view, that it has to protect the global commons."
PLEASE!! If one is truly a "journalist", and not what seems like a small-town high school teacher, one would know that America for the most part does NOT enter into military engagements for altruistic reasons, "protect[ing] the global commons", but to, often ruthlessly, further its mostly commercial interests, i.e. on behalf of the 1% Oligarchy.
During the Cold War these impulses were tempered by the real fear of nuclear armageddon. Now that America is the single overwhelming military power, America has increasingly operated under the "might makes right" doctrine, with terrible results, for itself, and the world at large, Kosovo being an exception.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html?comments#permid=102
Overall, for the first time in some time, I agree with the general thrust of Mr. Friedman's column: bombing Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons, when acknowledging that this would to little to nothing to stop such use of chemical weapons, was ridiculous, and the push to attack was by the top elite (beholden to the Military/Industrial Complex), and vehemently opposed by the majority of "us".
However, even here Mr. Friedman cannot keep himself from including the typical myopic, that is to say American-centric view of the world, when one would expect a much broader perspective from a "journalist".
"I guess worrying about Syria is the tax you pay for being an American or an American president — and coming from the world’s strongest power that still believes, blessedly in my view, that it has to protect the global commons."
PLEASE!! If one is truly a "journalist", and not what seems like a small-town high school teacher, one would know that America for the most part does NOT enter into military engagements for altruistic reasons, "protect[ing] the global commons", but to, often ruthlessly, further its mostly commercial interests, i.e. on behalf of the 1% Oligarchy.
During the Cold War these impulses were tempered by the real fear of nuclear armageddon. Now that America is the single overwhelming military power, America has increasingly operated under the "might makes right" doctrine, with terrible results, for itself, and the world at large, Kosovo being an exception.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Comment on: "Readers Answer Me Answering Them" Blog post by Nicholas D. Kristof, NYT Sept. 17, 2013
For original blog post see:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/readers-answer-me-answering-them/
Your arguments, as I understand them, still come down to "humanitarian" or "moral" imperatives to "intervene" in Syria because they allegedly used chemical weapons, which are "outlawed" by an international treaty, to which Syria is not a signatory.
The US is not a signatory (did not ratify) to the Kyoto Protocol and is still polluting the atmosphere at record levels. Does that give other countries the right to bomb US power plants?
Just for reference, the deaths caused by these chemical attacks are estimated to be about 2% of all casualties of the current civil war. Also, by the governments own account, the proposed strikes would NOT eliminate the chemical weapons, but would indeed have (unknown numbers) of "collateral casualties".
International law: seizing a slave ship for humanitarian reasons is a long way from dropping bombs! An equivalence in your "genocide" arguments would be to arbitrarily pick the "bad guy" and then bomb the heck out of them, rather than sending in a UN force to separate the warring parties.
Your cost estimates are way off. You make the typical cynical error of lowballing the numbers so as to fit your argument. Whatever the cost of air strikes, in humanitarian and ethical terms, that money would be much, much better spent helping with the refugee crisis to minimize the social and economic disruptions in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
Your credibility continues to decline as you tenaciously hold on to your ridiculous arguments.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Comment on: "Gunman and 11 Victims Killed in Shooting at D.C. Navy Yard", NYT, Sept. 16,2013
For original article see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/shooting-reported-at-washington-navy-yard.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us&target=comments
This is another terrible episode in the continuing American obsession with guns.
What this also shows (as if this kind of evidence were necessary to any thinking person), how absolutely ridiculous, even brainlessly stupid, the NRA proposal is for armed guards or armed teachers in schools to "protect" children.
Here we have a "highly secure" Naval Facility in proximity to Congress and the White House (how many "good guys", I wonder, armed to the teeth, are in that area), and yet it was not possible to prevent and armed crazy person getting in and killing at least 12 (as of now) people.
Comment on: "The Syrian Pact" NYT Editorial, Sep. 16, 2013
For original editorial, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?ref=global
This is one of these rare but fortunate happenstances in international politics, where a supposed gaffe by Sec. Kerry set in motion negotiations to REALLY prevent further use of chemical weapons (which a US military strike would NOT have done). This "gaffe" gave Russia/Putin an opportunity to become involved, and invested in the process, which in turn allows the UN to become active.
Overall this piece is a perfect summary both of the benefits and opportunities, but also the difficulties of this effort.
It is, however, disturbing that even this very enlightened editorial does not seem to get beyond the myopic, which is to say US-centric, view of international affairs.
"Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."
Mr. Putin's position is labeled as "cynical", but unemotional reflection should show that is is no more cynical than the US position. We just heard that the CIA is delivering weapons to "the rebels", and the US was perfectly happy bombing Syria, i.e. killing people, while admitting that this would not stop future use of chemical weapons. We, the US have been content to stand by and see the killings with conventional weapons, all the while looking for an acceptable reason to supply more support, including weapons deliveries to the rebels. Why is that any less "cynical" than Putin's actions?
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Comment on: U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms (NYT, Sept. 14, 2013)
See following for NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?ref=global-home
What was originally portrayed as a "gaffe" by Sec. Kerry may well turn into a hallmark of successful international action against a "rogue state".
Even the most fierce proponents of military strikes against Syria conceded that such strikes would do little or nothing to actually get rid of Syria's chemical weapons or prevent them from using them again in the future (even taking as a "fact" that the government is responsible for all the use of chemical weapons).
Now with Russia, and very likely the UN, fully engaged in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, the likelihood of actually preventing further use is much higher. To be sure, the implementation of the agreement poses immense problems, but we now have Russia, Syria's most ardent supporter, engaged in this task together with the rest of the world community, and failure to accomplish the stated goal will be just as much an embarrassment to Russia.
I was, and am, totally opposed to unilateral military strikes against Syria - the notion that we would be engaging in "humanitarian" action against the atrocity of killing people with chemical weapons by killing people with conventional weapons always seemed someway delusional to me.
I do admit, however, that the seeming success of what I would like to call the "Kerry initiative" seems to have been made possible, at least partly, by the real threat of US military strikes. But given the abject failure of US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, I would still be opposed to unilateral (or some phony "coalition of the willing") military strikes against Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?ref=global-home
What was originally portrayed as a "gaffe" by Sec. Kerry may well turn into a hallmark of successful international action against a "rogue state".
Even the most fierce proponents of military strikes against Syria conceded that such strikes would do little or nothing to actually get rid of Syria's chemical weapons or prevent them from using them again in the future (even taking as a "fact" that the government is responsible for all the use of chemical weapons).
Now with Russia, and very likely the UN, fully engaged in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, the likelihood of actually preventing further use is much higher. To be sure, the implementation of the agreement poses immense problems, but we now have Russia, Syria's most ardent supporter, engaged in this task together with the rest of the world community, and failure to accomplish the stated goal will be just as much an embarrassment to Russia.
I was, and am, totally opposed to unilateral military strikes against Syria - the notion that we would be engaging in "humanitarian" action against the atrocity of killing people with chemical weapons by killing people with conventional weapons always seemed someway delusional to me.
I do admit, however, that the seeming success of what I would like to call the "Kerry initiative" seems to have been made possible, at least partly, by the real threat of US military strikes. But given the abject failure of US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, I would still be opposed to unilateral (or some phony "coalition of the willing") military strikes against Syria.
Comment on "When Complexity Is Free" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - The Putin NYT Editorial generally.
See the original editorial at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/friedman-when-complexity-is-free.html?comments#permid=1
I am not a fan of Putin, by a long shot. His editorial in the NYT was certainly full of self-serving platitudes, especially when read in the context of the Russian reality today.
However, the source aside, there are a lot of "kernels of truth" in what Putin (or more probably, a very talented writer, or writers, on his staff) had to say.
Just to pick one, the comments on American exceptionalism, seem to have rubbed the majority of Americans the wrong way - again, ignore the source, and just concentrate on the statements as such.
"American exceptionalism" is a "myth" cherished by Americans as part of their self image. It was, to a large extent, true in generations past. It is part and parcel of what attracted me to immigrate to America in 1963.
However, taking a hard and unemotional look at America today, that "exceptionalism" is a thing of the past. Just looking at most of the OECD statistics on quality of life, education, upward mobility, health care, etc., it is inescapable that America lags most other "developed" countries in most, if not all, of these comparative statistics.
There are still some very "exceptional" characteristics which define America - the "can do" attitude, and general "openness" being two which jump to my mind. However, as the Putin editorial says, there is something very dangerous and self-deceptive on beating ones chest with "American exceptionalism", because it prevents one from recognizing the deficiencies we do have, and then solving them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/friedman-when-complexity-is-free.html?comments#permid=1
I am not a fan of Putin, by a long shot. His editorial in the NYT was certainly full of self-serving platitudes, especially when read in the context of the Russian reality today.
However, the source aside, there are a lot of "kernels of truth" in what Putin (or more probably, a very talented writer, or writers, on his staff) had to say.
Just to pick one, the comments on American exceptionalism, seem to have rubbed the majority of Americans the wrong way - again, ignore the source, and just concentrate on the statements as such.
"American exceptionalism" is a "myth" cherished by Americans as part of their self image. It was, to a large extent, true in generations past. It is part and parcel of what attracted me to immigrate to America in 1963.
However, taking a hard and unemotional look at America today, that "exceptionalism" is a thing of the past. Just looking at most of the OECD statistics on quality of life, education, upward mobility, health care, etc., it is inescapable that America lags most other "developed" countries in most, if not all, of these comparative statistics.
There are still some very "exceptional" characteristics which define America - the "can do" attitude, and general "openness" being two which jump to my mind. However, as the Putin editorial says, there is something very dangerous and self-deceptive on beating ones chest with "American exceptionalism", because it prevents one from recognizing the deficiencies we do have, and then solving them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"We may not be able to solve Syria’s problems. I’m not even certain that we can mitigate them. But we can try, and a starting point would be a big push for humanitarian access."
However, I'm shocked that as a "journalist" you are still engaging in "war-mongering". You cite completely unverified reports of atrocities by one side as a way to further your arguments that the US should, for example, launch "...military strike to destroy some of Assad’s murderous air force." I am pretty sure these atrocities are happening, but not only by Assad's side. Even the NYT has reported on atrocities by the "rebels", whoever they are.
I don't know how intelligent people like you can keep clamoring for military action, when we have ample evidence to show that even ten years of war, with ample "boots on the ground", cannot stop the senseless killings in the Middle East - and don't tell me about Kosovo; that's a completely different situation!
Many of our "experts" talk about the "Free Syrian Army" as if this were some well defined, well organized group that, but for a few arms from the US, could bring peace and stability to Syria. That is such a dumb proposition, it leaves one speechless!
We have to face the fact that the sectarian and religious slaughter now going on in the Middle East is like a virus before antibiotics - we can ease some of the symptoms (give aid to the refugees), but it has to run its course.