It has always seemed strange to me why America embraced Vodka as the clear alcohol of choice commensurate with the Cold War. Booth’s Gin made the traditional Martini, a British product, an Allie from the Great War, why Vodka?
In fighting Evil it seems one becomes evil as well. Maybe not at first but little by little one must fight fire with fire, and pretty soon there is no difference. So, in fighting Al Queda, Ben Laden and Saddam Husayn, do we become evil too? A religious conservative would say yes. The world seems to think so too. Is all the hatred of America in the ME due just to our thrashing about during the Cold War or is there something else? Is our continued close support of Israel in anybodies best interest? Was our role in brokering a peace between Palestinians and Israel a sham or was it helpful. It hasn’t worked for as long as I can remember. Have we been used?
There seems to be a third party on the political scene. As we declared for Iraq there was unbelievable rhetoric about preemptive strike, going it alone, democratizing the ME and I hope never to hear the words shock and awe again. Clearly, we proceeded with a Machiavellian agenda. Our troops bore the brunt of it. Colin Powell seems to oppose it. Vice President Cheney seems to lead it.
The term Neoconservative has been used to describe the strategy. The Neocons, as they are called, read like some ancient medieval philosophy, which it turns out to be. Strauss and Leden are scary reading some of it comes from Trotsky, nothing democratic here. This is way beyond the Monroe Doctrine. It sounds totalitarian. What’s driving this existential foreign policy?
Globalization must be to the advantage of big multinational corporations. Extend free trade to emerging economies, show them how democracy works and what have you got? --- Economic Colonialism. The people are better off just like with earlier Empirical Colonialism: same game, new name. Follow the money. Of course, some of this Colonialism has to be at gunpoint, but that’s the whole point of Neo Conservatism. A better name might be Neo Colonialism.
The arguments by Neocons suggest that only the educated elite is fit to lead and the rest of us must follow. It even suggests that the enlightened leadership must deceive its government as well as its constituency to achieve desirable ends. Sound familiar? I am not interested in a political party that does not listen to the people but dances to the money that’s all three of them.
However, nothing here excuses the random acts of terror or the Arab people the responsibility for those among them who commit those acts. What we have done in the world has been in good faith and with a perceived fair handedness. We ask little in return. When confronting Evil however it may be well to leave evil be. Let it self-destruct from within, lest we become totalitarian in our zeal.
When Vodka goes out of style perhaps we will all be wearing turbans inside the beltway.
In fighting Evil it seems one becomes evil as well. Maybe not at first but little by little one must fight fire with fire, and pretty soon there is no difference. So, in fighting Al Queda, Ben Laden and Saddam Husayn, do we become evil too? A religious conservative would say yes. The world seems to think so too. Is all the hatred of America in the ME due just to our thrashing about during the Cold War or is there something else? Is our continued close support of Israel in anybodies best interest? Was our role in brokering a peace between Palestinians and Israel a sham or was it helpful. It hasn’t worked for as long as I can remember. Have we been used?
There seems to be a third party on the political scene. As we declared for Iraq there was unbelievable rhetoric about preemptive strike, going it alone, democratizing the ME and I hope never to hear the words shock and awe again. Clearly, we proceeded with a Machiavellian agenda. Our troops bore the brunt of it. Colin Powell seems to oppose it. Vice President Cheney seems to lead it.
The term Neoconservative has been used to describe the strategy. The Neocons, as they are called, read like some ancient medieval philosophy, which it turns out to be. Strauss and Leden are scary reading some of it comes from Trotsky, nothing democratic here. This is way beyond the Monroe Doctrine. It sounds totalitarian. What’s driving this existential foreign policy?
Globalization must be to the advantage of big multinational corporations. Extend free trade to emerging economies, show them how democracy works and what have you got? --- Economic Colonialism. The people are better off just like with earlier Empirical Colonialism: same game, new name. Follow the money. Of course, some of this Colonialism has to be at gunpoint, but that’s the whole point of Neo Conservatism. A better name might be Neo Colonialism.
The arguments by Neocons suggest that only the educated elite is fit to lead and the rest of us must follow. It even suggests that the enlightened leadership must deceive its government as well as its constituency to achieve desirable ends. Sound familiar? I am not interested in a political party that does not listen to the people but dances to the money that’s all three of them.
However, nothing here excuses the random acts of terror or the Arab people the responsibility for those among them who commit those acts. What we have done in the world has been in good faith and with a perceived fair handedness. We ask little in return. When confronting Evil however it may be well to leave evil be. Let it self-destruct from within, lest we become totalitarian in our zeal.
When Vodka goes out of style perhaps we will all be wearing turbans inside the beltway.
Comments