Eshin Direct

Write a new comment 7 comments

1. Permalink # Eyal said

   You’re going to looooove this one:

   http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/13298_Saddam.html

2. Permalink # Eshin said

   All these links you point out seem to have a Russian connection to them, no?

   Much that I’d like to believe the Bush administration is still wagging the dog…

   1. Who cares if he’s the real Saddam or not? Let’s be certain and kill any duplicates found to be on the safe side. Imposter or not, this guy’s going to face justice one way or another. The public need will be served. If other Saddams pop up, the US just has free reign to kill on the spot.

   2. Apparently authors of this conspiracy feel that you need to pay attention to personal grooming when you are on the run from the might of the US military machine. Additionally, they question his being unshaven in court. No shit. I wouldn’t let anything sharp within two meters of the guy. I’d even keep him naked and shackled to a wall for fear of him strangling himself.

   3. It was said that the West never offically closed the investigation into Hitler’s death until the 80′s when the Russians admitted they had seen the body.

   It might seem like a contradiction but Saddam Hussein is a sideshow and his fate is now going to be nothing more than historical footnote. The point for me was that the US has failed to convince me and a lot of other people out there about Saddam’s connection to al-Qaeda.

   This is important since the Bush administration is still in power and should be held accountable for possibly going to war on inaccurate information and not doing it’s intended goal to fight terrorism and find Osama bin Laden.

3. Permalink # Eyal said

   You are right Saddam is a sideshow. Furthermore, whether he had anything to do with al-Qaeda is totally irrelevant. As a matter of fact it does not matter at all who the US attacked and why. If they proved military ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda would the entire world all of a sudden like and support the USA?

   What matters to the opponents of this war is not the fate of the Iraqi people, not WMD, not even economic factors. What matters is that the USA is an empire, the most powerful force today in the world and many people are having trouble coming to terms with this. This is natural. Throughout history people opposed empires – whether they were right, wrong, benevolent or evil.

   The only consolation for these people is that empires don’t last forever. After the USA empire declines – as it must do – we will have a new empire. Maybe China or maybe a united Arab world or something completely different. And just like any other empire before it the new empire will do whatever it wants and there will be people opposing it etc. etc. etc.

4. Permalink # Robert McClelland said

   After the USA empire declines – as it must do

   But here’s catch. Past history has taught us that when an empire declines, the world is thrown into chaos. Some of us would rather avoid that and so we continuously strive to set the US on a better course than the one they are on; that being, trying to rule the world.

5. Permalink # Eshin said

   Empire or not, the US is a democratic nation which is based on it’s superior and noble ideals. This is what doesn’t sit well with people in the rest of the world when the US decides to go into countries for their own aggrandisement and interests.

   In regards to the war in Iraq, I would agree it’s too late to withdraw. The US committed itself and the world down that path. We don’t have to thank them for it though. We also have a duty to examine the evidence and the reasons why the US went into Iraq.

   You overestimate the power of the US in this. If the US was caught out being dishonest in it’s case for war in Iraq, then it will have repercussions in the future. Regime change in Iran or North Korea might not be as readily accepted or tolerated. The US isn’t an empire yet. The democracies around the world still have to answer to their constituents. Think concern for the economy has anything to do with it? India’s recent elections should dispel you of that myth. The election of Pym Fortune’s right-wing party in the Netherlands is another example. The Spanish election result.

   The US cannot alienate it’s allies. It’s not based on a system that allows them to behave like a empire for protracted periods of time. This is because noble ideals such as freedom and democracy are intrinsically part of the US system. Another lesson from Vietnam. If it wishes to retain it’s dominant position on the world stage, it’s needs to do so through economic partnerships, cultural imperialism, and diplomatic means.

   It’s hard to do that when the world hates you. Especially more so if they’ve caught you at a lie.

   Democratically based empires are often shortlived anyway. From the Athenians to the French, they never lasted as long as those who had less lofty ideals about humanity and weren’t queasy about being brutal in their establishment of an empire.

   If the world so wished, en masse, to revolt against a perceived tyranny of the US, there would be very little that the US could do to stop it. At least not without damaging their own interests.

6. Permalink # Eyal said

   Nadim – All the contraints, power limitations etc. you mentioned are part of a normal world. All empires face these issues, Rome, Athens or the British for example weren’t always in a position to dictate everything they wanted, all of the time.

   I don’t think that what doesn’t sit well with people is the issue of the USA going against some of its values. Even before the war in Iraq large parts of the world resented and opposed American economic domination, cultural influence etc. The war in Iraq is just another natural manifestation of American power. It is indeed on a different level than economic power which is why it caused a much more vocal and concentrated response.

   Robert – yes, this is understandable. The thing is that people look at the war in Iraq as isolated from the big picture and just use it as easy grounds for justifying going against everything American. Not only that, but the issue of Iraq has other aspects to it like the problem the world is having with Islam. So trying to steer the US on a better course can be dangerous if it makes people ignore all the other world problems we have. And as Nadim mentioned places like Iran and N. Korea will also need to be taken care of in one way or another. With all the criticism about the way the US is going about things, I don’t see any other country or group of countries who have not only the power but also the will to do anything about those countries for example.

   Btw, some of these ideas are not originially mine. I was discussing the book Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire with a friend the other day.

7. Permalink # Eshin said

   You missed my point. My point wasn’t that there was no limitations at all, it’s just a matter of varying degrees. Their very nature will often have an impact on how long their empire will last.

   Democratically based empires will not last as long as other empires which were built on the premise of other, less noble ideals – greed and glory. The orignally democractic Athenian Empire was very shortlived after it extended it’s mandate beyond it’s dominant position within the Greek community.

   Rome’s empire lasted significantly longer. They weren’t bound by the ideals that democratic nations espouse. Carthage provides us with an example. It wasn’t “liberated” or “regime changed”. It was eradicated. Her buildings were razed and the remaining rock was removed to remove any sign that the city existed. Salt was sowed in the land so that it would never be able to sustain crops. It’s people were slaughtered or dispersed to the four winds as slaves. Carthage never rose again.

   We can thank the Romans for the word “decimate”. I believe this word is rooted in the ancient ritual of taking a tenth of a auxilliary legion and executing them as a incentive to fight better for Rome.

   Rome used fear as much any other tactic to achieve it’s domination over the Western world.

   The old British empire remains a halfway house. Technically a monarchy that behaved like a democracy. But one wonders why the British, and not the Germans, can be accredited with establishing the first concentration camps?

   The point is that for the US to operate unilaterally by force, this will only lead to the path of ruin. It needs its allies to work with it to secure its position of first among equals. Only in this way can there be peace. Could the US do what Rome did? No. Why? It’s public won’t accept that. Why? Because they’ve grown up believing in universal suffrage and human rights.

   The empires of Rome and Britain would most likely have already executed the prisoners at Quantanamo Bay. The recent ruling on their status and their rights has only contributed to the US inability to establish it’s empire. Combined with incompetence in Iraq as an occupying force, no-one fears America.

   Tyranny is what lies at the heart of any nation that subjugates others so successfully. And tyranny is so un-American and goes against the democratic values that a significant chunk of the world does believe in. That is why anti-Americanisn is much more focused at this level.