America the Terrorist : Our Bloody Wars

Show All Rants

At first I was going to write an article listing all the terrible decisions that George W. Bush has made and why I think he is unfit to be president. Even if you are convinced that his 2000 election was entirely legal, you'd have to admit that the president has made some questionable decisions (ignoring verifiable scientific data, refusing to track the sale of small arms, No Child Left Behind, alienating our allies, trashing the environment). But such a topic dealt too much with the symptoms and not enough with the root causes. By the way, if you think that people who openly criticize the reigning administration in hostile terms are somehow being "un-American" and that we should hold our tongues or leave the country, wake up. You could move to North Korea or China where they are quite happy to have citizens who mindlessly support their governments. The United States was not designed to be such a place; if the administration cannot handle the abuses hurled toward it, it is not fit to be in power. That is the true nature of a democracy.

There is a concept that I felt was critical to understand when trying to make sense of current events and the political power struggles that coalesce on Election Day. The concept to keep in mind is that of the availability heuristic. This is the tendency to base decisions not on a broad body of historical evidence but on recent, vivid events that skew our perceptions. Anyone who has dealt with statistics is familiar with this concept: expect the average.

In the political arena, this plays out something like this: Bush alone did not dig us into the hole we are in. Kerry alone (or some other candidate) cannot get us out of it. The system is set in motion so that an individual has little power to change its momentum. The term "average" becomes synonymous with "system," and deviations from the "normal way of doing things" are pruned from the tree with alacrity.

Money vs. Freedom

Now for some perspective: the United States does not lionize freedom. The United States has invaded and overthrown more countries and their governments than it has supposedly "rescued." The United States has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined, and the US has demonstrated time and time again that it is not afraid to use them. Who would argue that the rest of the world is justified in viewing the United States as terrorists? This isn't data gleaned from recent vivid memories; this batting record is the historical average.

The point is that any one of these incidents killed more people than the 9/11 attacks, and some of these interventions have not yet come to an end: Iran is still ruled by an authoritarian government because of American intervention. Countless lives have been changed for the worse. And why? Mostly, it seems that these interventions profited US corporations. Actually, I'm surprised that the US has not suffered retribution earlier, and more often. If something like the 1953 Iranian coup were acted out against America, the US would surely mete out vengeance far more deadly than merely crashing a few planes into buildings. Be thankful that other countries and cultures are not as vengeful as America.

Openly attacking enemies, staging coups, and meddling with foreign governments for economic gain is what America has done historically, and the law of averages suggests that this is what Americans will continue to do; Bush certainly has lived up to these expectations. In his 4 years as president, he has invaded and overthrown two foreign countries. I make no excuses for Saddam Hussein and his brutal nature, but the US has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam did. The UN estimates 500,000 were killed throughout the 1990s because of sanctions and bombing. Somewhere around 13,000 civilians and 5,000 combatants have been killed as a result of the recent US invasion. The first figure is atrocious, but the latter figure alone tops the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam, including Kurds who were supposedly killed in the gas attacks of 1988 (some US reports of the time denied that the attacks even took place -- strange that these figures are denied then broadcasted depending on political moods...).

Who is the greater villian? Who can say that when the US kills it is somehow better? Furthermore, how can the American public sit and watch as Bush accused Saddam of "ignoring the UN" then blatantly disregarded the same organization when he attacked Iraq unprovoked? All of this was based on assumptions which have yet to be proven. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Imagine the feeling a police officer might have if he mistakenly shot a person whom he thought was armed: he would certainly feel regret or remorse. Yet the Bush administration has ignored the innocent casualties and hailed the war as "liberating the Iraqi people." How can the American public watch this passively? Answer: apathy towards foreign intervention has been the historical norm.

Mindless Patriotism

"Support our troops." I see the slogan on cars and lawns daily. However, if supporting our troops results in incidents anything like the immoral and bloody incidents listed above, I can see no place for support for them by any person with a conscience. I think that the absolute best way to support our troops is to give them a competent commander. What if the head of Texaco controlled the most powerful military on Earth? Would you really trust that Texaco and its Army were fighting for honorable and noble purposes? If the thought of a coroporate ruler disturbs you, then shouldn't the thought of a president with corporate ties also be disturbing? I don't know a single person who was not disgusted when he or she heard about an internal corporate memo that admitted deadly flaws in a company's product, yet the calculated cost of lawsuits was cheaper than the cost of recalling and repairing the problem (e.g. the Ford Pinto's tendency to catch fire, similar to the more recent lawsuits about the Crown Victoria). Would you be willing to put your life on the line for someone who determines your fate based on what good it will bring the economy? Such reasoning is beyond corrupt, yet it has been practiced by nearly every US President since the second World War, including Bush. It is for this reason that I feel he should not be re-elected. I do have hopes that Kerry would do better in this reguard, because he did speak out against the war in Vietnam; however, the historical record shows that American presidents are unlikely to approach war in anything but economic terms. Invasion of oil-rich Kuwait brought quick American retribution, yet Rowandan genocide barely got a headline.

Therefore, the impetus to have a President as far removed from corporations as possible makes some sense. If you know which corporations are funding the presidency, you have a pretty good idea of whose interests the administration is serving. The modern-day Gettysburg Address might conclude as follows: that government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.

To call the current system a true democracy is a bit far fetched. Less than half the population voted in the 2000 election (read: democratically speaking, America is not a democracy), and to be on the ballot you must be extraordinarily wealthy. At present, the US has no chance of having a blue-collar president. What exists here is more aptly described as a plutocracy, or in the case of the Bushes or Kennedy's, an oligarchy. Democrats and Republicans alike are entreched in playing the same foul game, yet neither side offers something that is truly different. It's like this country is stuck in a deranged South Park episode where the only candidates available are either a giant duche or a turd-sandwhich. And the alternatives are not allowed to speak. During the final Bush-Kerry debate, the Libertarian and Green party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb, were tactifully arrested and prevented from entering. I find that a bit spooky in a country which supposedly champions the rights of free speech and democratic elections.

Corporate Influence in Politics

I suspect many of Top 25 Republican Donors would also pay their dues to a Democratic president to get their way. If you've ever withheld money from a pan-handler because you suspected that he would use it to buy alcohol, then you can understand why companies with strong political ties should be boycotted. Think of it this way: going to DisneyLand, drinking a Pepsi, buying a Ford, filling your car, or using Microsoft Windows indirectly results in the overthrow of a foreign government or the death of its citizens.

Suggestions for change? Get money out of our politics. End handouts to corporations: the possibility for corruption is too great. Foreign policy? Stop screwing around with the affairs of others. Be a good neighbor: follow the Golden Rule. If we wouldn't want a foreign country overthrowing our democratically elected leader, why should we overthrow someone else's? Accountability for politicians who crossed the line. For example, if it is well-known that Lyndon Johnson cheated in his Texas election to governor with the fabricated votes in Alice, why is he still honored as having done America some sort of service? His dishonorable morals are a disgrace. One of the most pathetic shows of loyalty I have ever seen was the Chinese unfailing allegiance to their beloved Chairman Mao. Yes, he put China on the map, but his disasterous social policies killed more Chinese than any foreign invasion. The American party system? If these are the only choices we have, something must change. If valid alternatives are arrested before they can debate, how can we possibly hear our options for change? The most important thing, however, is for the citizens in this country to inform themselves. The politicians work FOR the citizens. The people of this country are their boss. But if we don't know what the issues are or how the system works, we are being a lousy boss. In that case, laws will continually be rewritten in favor of the politicians and the corporations funding them.

Just for fun, I thought I'd include this link to a political quiz. It's only 8 questions and it quickly shows to which party best matches your beliefs. There are also longer quizes which use actual party doctrines on various issues. They take longer, but are more accurate.
Short Quiz (10 min.)
Long Quiz (20 min.)