Hey Everyone-- Let's Bash the US!!!

[erislover]

*Originally posted by maryliza *
You say that in your opinion it is a “twist of fate” that the continent that contains the United States is called “America”. Not to be too hard on you, but that’s baloney. The continent was referred to as “America” long before the pilgrims showed up. So it’s more a “twist of fate” that we started identifying ourselves as American.

No, simply that there was no conscious decision involved in the process.

And I won’t even comment on your statement about how the Western Hemisphere is called America.

Well, speaking in terms of appreciable land masses we’ve divided it into North America, South America, and Central America. Did I miss a land mass? In terms of Continents even Central America gets slighted; is this arrogance too?

That said, in my earlier post I noted that there isn’t a better term available to refer to citizens of the United States. United Staters? Doesn’t sound right. Although the usage is inherently flawed, I concede that referring to ourselves as Americans is the easiest way to identify ourselves.

What are you talking about? “It’s ok because nothing else sounds right”? Ugh, I’d hate to present that to someone who found the usage offensive.

However, my nitpick with your statements was that you seem to believe that the country is called (or should only be referred to as) America. That is inaccurate. The country is called the United States of America.

Inaccurate? If I said I was American, you would search your memory for a country which can identify itself as such.
The United States of America. Canada has no such use of “America” in its name. Mexico doesn’t. Cuba surely doesn’t. So what’s the problem here?

But for accuracy’s sake, you are from the United States.

When someone asks where you are from only a weirdo would give anything but their country a mention; as such, I submit again that it is impossible to think of a different country when one says “American.”

I mean, inaccurate? “Where ya from?” ; “The U.S.” Is that inaccurate to because we’re not the US we’re the United States? Is it arrogant to assume someone would use our abbreviations (assuming we’re the ones that made it up)?

[One_Cell]

Recently, an interesting letter in http://www.iranian.com asked
why there hasn’t been a debate on the utility of US
sanctions in promoting human rights and democracy,
since, according to the theory mentioned in the
letter, by hurting Iranians the sanctions will
eventually cause them to overthrow their regime.

You would think that the thirty-plus years of US
sanctions imposed on Cuba should be more than
sufficient to dismiss this theory that “Hurting
Iranians will eventually hurt the mollahs.” And note
that neither Iraq nor Libya are exactly shining
beacons of liberty either, despite undergoing many
years of sanctions (multilateral ones at that.)

However, leaving aside the merits of the theory itself
(or lack thereof), the letter asked why there hasn’t
been a debate about it, which is a separate issue. For
that, there are several related answers:

For one thing, the real reason why there hasn’t been
much debate about the use of sanctions to promote
human rights or democracy is because the US sanctions
on Iran obviously have nothing to do with democracy or
human rights. They never did, and they never will.
Rather, the sanctions are primarily intended to
subjugate Iran to Israel, which is why the three
standard U.S. complaints about Iran - support for
“terrorism”, opposition to the “peace process”,
manufacture of “weapons of mass destruction” - are all
issues which involve opposition to Israel’s regional
ambitions, and have nothing to do with Iran’s
democractic or human rights situation. That is also
why AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby groups are so
active in promoting the sanctions and work so hard to
prevent any US-Iran rapprochement.

Secondly, the suggestion that US sanctions can
promote human rights or democracy is based on the
extremely naive assumption that the US is a
goody-two-shoes out to spread democracy in the world.
In fact, the US is a self-interested super-power, and
despite all the pretty propaganda about democracy and
human rights, historically speaking the United States
has consistenly opposed the development of
representative governments in places such as Iran.
After all, if people in “those sorts” of countries
start running their own affairs . . . who knows! Next
they’ll want to do something silly like take
possession of their own oil industry too . . . and the
US didn’t like that sort of thing very much, now did
she? Even Ms. Albright apologized for CIA -backed coup to remove from power the popular Iranian leader, Mosadegh. Now, how many true nationalists like Mosadegh can a country like Iran produce and place in power in a hundred years?

Furthermore, if the promotion of human rights or
democracy is ever proclaimed to be the goal of
US sanctions, then it would also become painfully
obvious that the US should also be sanctioning Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, and a whole lot of other
US-backed tin-pot dictatorships and repressive regimes
around the world, instead of singling out Iran. That’s
a bit of embarrassment the US can do without.

Ultimately, the US sanctions on Iran will no doubt
continue under their own intertia, because no American
politican is brave enough to openly admit to having
pursued a failed policy on Iran (especially when it
won’t help them win the next election), because having
Iran as a “rogue state” is convenient for the US
military, US weapons manufacturers, and other
fear-mongers who need a regular cast of bad guys to
scare up tax-payer dollars for their pet programs, and
because Israel will continue to manipulate US foreign
policy as it has for years.

In any case, the bottom line is that the US currently
lacks the moral credibility to lecture the world about
human rights or democracy. Any debate about the
utility of sanctions to promote human rights or
democracy is therefore dead-on-arrival. Neither
democracy nor human rights can be coercively induced
from abroad by a self-interested super-power whose
rank hypocricy on these same issues is daily on
display for any observer with even a mild interest in
Mideast affairs

[TwistofFate]

Usurper.
I don’t bash America.
I don’t bash Americans.
I do bash idiots. And you are doing an admirable job of displaying that for yourself, as has been already demonstrated.

[Blackclaw]

*Originally posted by One Cell *
For one thing, the real reason why there hasn’t been
much debate about the use of sanctions to promote
human rights or democracy is because the US sanctions
on Iran obviously have nothing to do with democracy or
human rights. They never did, and they never will.
Rather, the sanctions are primarily intended to
subjugate Iran to Israel, which is why the three
standard U.S. complaints about Iran - support for
“terrorism”, opposition to the “peace process”,
manufacture of “weapons of mass destruction” - are all
issues which involve opposition to Israel’s regional
ambitions, and have nothing to do with Iran’s
democractic or human rights situation.

The sanctions don’t have much hope of bringing forth democracy in Iran, although they may have had some affect in helping President Khatemi in his attempts at normalizing relations with the West. I’m not sure where you get the idea that the sanctions are there to subject Iran to Isreal. That’s a rather bizzare assertion. Isreal is simply an ally of the USA, not some mythological creation that we are bent on making the world worship.

The true goal of the sanctions is to limit the growth of the Iranian fundamentalist government and its ability to project force or influence in a manner that would threaten oil supplies that we rely on.

In addition to their impact on the Iranian political scene, sanctions have made an important contribution to U.S. security by depriving Iran of the resources it could otherwise have used for a military buildup. Iran had to curtail its 1989 five year plan for $10 billion in weapons purchase because of budget problems – problems due in significant part to the U.S. pressure against loans to Iran which began in 1993. In the period 1989-96, Iran announced agreements with various suppliers to purchase many more weapons that it actually acquired, e.g., 1,000-1,500 tanks agreed to but only 184 acquired; 100-200 aircraft agreed to but only 57 acquired, and 200-300 artillery pieces agreed to but only 106 acquired.

from: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/clawson.htm

**
Next they’ll want to do something silly like take
possession of their own oil industry too . . . and the
US didn’t like that sort of thing very much, now did
she?

**
No, the US doesn’t like that sort of thing. But more importantly, the companies that invest millions in creating that oil industry don’t like that sort of thing. After all, the oil industry wouldn’t exist without their investment and to simply have that investment stolen from them gives them little reason to ever put more funding into a nation that takes such actions.

**
Even Ms. Albright apologized for CIA -backed coup to remove from power the popular Iranian leader, Mosadegh. Now, how many true nationalists like Mosadegh can a country like Iran produce and place in power in a hundred years?

**
Keeping in mind the Iranian government’s habit of beating its educated citizens, not many I bet.

**
Furthermore, if the promotion of human rights or
democracy is ever proclaimed to be the goal of
US sanctions, then it would also become painfully
obvious that the US should also be sanctioning Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, and a whole lot of other
US-backed tin-pot dictatorships and repressive regimes
around the world, instead of singling out Iran. That’s
a bit of embarrassment the US can do without.**

The arguement, “other nations are repressive regimes too” isn’t a very strong one. The arguement cast off any attempt at justifying the actions of a nation and simply pleads that it’s no worse than others. (A point on which I disagree. But Iran isn’t as bad as the Taliban if you want to reach a point of agreement.) But in any case, Iran is picked on by the US because it is seen as a threat to its interests in the region.

**
In any case, the bottom line is that the US currently
lacks the moral credibility to lecture the world about
human rights or democracy. **

I disagree. The US may be flawed and it certainly has a political self interest in its criticisms of Iran, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t merit to the criticism. Iran is a nation held hostage by a fundamentalist regime that regularly uses violence to enforce its rule. It is a bigoted state that worships at the feet of ignorance as it sacrifices advances in academics in exchange for the ability to stifle criticism of its religious dictatorship. It treats its citizens like diseased sheep, forbiding them even simple choices such as what they are allowed to wear, what they are allowed to read, and who they are allowed to appear with in public.

http://www.cit.ics.saitama-u.ac.jp/hobbies/iran/dress.html

It is my hope that President Khatemi will continue his brave efforts for reform and that one day US and Iran will be able to normalize relations.

[mhendo]

Your criticism of the current regime in Iran seems to me to be reasonable. I don’t know too many people who think it’s a good thing.

But it seems to me that you need to look at the reasons behind situations lke this a little more closely. You made reference to OneCell’s post about Albright apologising for the CIA’s role in overthrowing Mossadegh, but only to make a vast overgeneralisation about the “Iranian government’s habit of beating its educated citizens.” What you fail totally to address is the period between Mossadegh’s overthrow and the rise of the current regime, an issue that is especially crucial given the title of this thread. Not only did the US help overthrow Mossadegh, but it helped put the Shah in his place. And it was the capitalist cronyism, the constant privileging of the interests of rich Iranians and large international corporations, carried out under the Shah, that was largely responsible for the current situation. That doesn’t make the current situation good, but you can’t just ignore such antecedents.

There are similar situations where US actions have helped to bring about a tyrannical regime, which the US then spends all its time criticising. Possibly the best example is Pol Pot in Cambodia after 1975. Heinous as Pol Pot’s crimes were, he was able to rise to power because many in Cambodia were looking for a populist and nationalist leader at a time when the Cambodian countryside had been almost obliterated by (illegal under international law) US carpet bombing and defoliation. This led to the inability to raise crops to feed the population, and starvation and disease were taking a heavy toll before Pol Pot started popping people off. Again, this doesn’t excuse the regime, but surely the notion of cause and effect need to be examined in any attempt to explain how leaders like this are able to come to the fore.

Repression, hunger and misery provide fertile ground for the growth of tyranny. And the US has sometimes been out there watering the garden.

[Gaudere]

TwistofFate:

I do bash idiots

[Moderator Hat ON]

You may bash idiotic arguments all you like here, but if you are going to bash posters, and in particular refer to them as “idiots”, you will do so in the BBQ Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by mhendo *
**
What you fail totally to address is the period between Mossadegh’s overthrow and the rise of the current regime, an issue that is especially crucial given the title of this thread. Not only did the US help overthrow Mossadegh, but it helped put the Shah in his place. And it was the capitalist cronyism, the constant privileging of the interests of rich Iranians and large international corporations, carried out under the Shah, that was largely responsible for the current situation. That doesn’t make the current situation good, but you can’t just ignore such antecedents.*

The US certainly does bear responsibilty for supporting the Shah. It was a terrible decision based on short term geopolitics. But while the existence of the Shah certainly influenced what the Iranians did not want as a government, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame the US for the government that arose. It’s possible to overthrow a tyrannical government and not replace it with one that is even worse. The wrongs that the US committed against Iran are a convienent excuse for the current regime to blame its excesses upon, but it still is merely an excuse. If that excuse did not work than I’m sure they would find another. If the US had not interfered in Iranian politics, we cannot be certain that the Islamic fundamentalist would not have risen up and seized power anyway. I certainly would have prefered that the Iranians had had the opportunity to find out and decide their own destiny without US involvement that only made matters worse.

[erislover]

I guess talk is cheap.