Here it is. Part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4. I don’t know what words I should use to describe this documentary. Informative? Scary? Crazy? How about quite disturbing?
|
-
Blog Featured In
-
Drima Elsewhere
-
Network with Drima
-
Nominated Three Times
-
Causes
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
This kept me up till 5:30 am the other day. Very interesting.
Disturbing? Perhaps, but surprising? I don’t think so …
Yes, defintely not surprising. In fact I’ve heard and read similar things as far as 6 years ago. I wasn’t surprised then and I’m not surprised now but this documentary certainly does go into disturbing details unlike anything else I’ve been exposed to before.
One thing that we ought not forget though.
Whatever the reasons may or may not be for the US fighting whoever they are fighting - Al Qaeda are not angels and nor was Saddam Hussein.
Yup!
All the more reason not to provoke the US.
Pundit - quite …
The foresight that Eisenhower had is frightening.
Actually, Eisenhower’s foresight wasn’t frightening, but rather prescient, which is what I think you mean.
However, he didn’t see some interesting side-effects, like the immense boost scientific research got from military-industrial development, which continues to boost American predominance in R&D.
Space exploration, advanced medical tech, computers, the internet, information technology, etc. - all of these are side-effects of the American military-industrial complex.
Ironically, nations that try to match the levels of spending on such high-tech R&D fail to muster enough enthusiasm from their populations during peacetime (welfare states are profoundly lethargic in this regard). It is the military-industrial complex that manages to rally support for such projects the best.
I hope the trend continues.
Finn,
Some of the side effects have been positive. However I for one do not hope that the trend continues as I feel that my voice and country have been hijacked by those that push a foreign agenda that perpetuates suffering and exploitation on a vast scale. I wish I had more time to explain myself but I’ll just leave it at that.
Aaron
Suffering and exploitation on a vast scale? Pure hyperbole.
Americans have single-handedly lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty throughout the world (if not billions, - yet), thanks to their open markets. I suppose that’s suffering.
Actually I think one of the biggest movers that got people out of poverty was the liberalization of China’s economy. Sure it helps that America is willing to buy all that stuff but it couldn’t have happened unless the Chinese authorities figured out the benefit of free markets, (or maybe the worthlessness of a command economy.)
The military-industrial-complex kind of thing is not solely the province of America either. In Venezuela Hugo Chavez uses the hyperbolic threat of American Imperialism to seize private property and centralize power under his command. There is also the way that seemingly every country in the Middle East exaggerates the threat of Israel to distract its people from all their domestic problems. Russia still tries to convince its people that the West is out to get them, as Putin clenches more control. To a lesser degree, China and South Korea encourage encourage its people to still be pissed at Japan for things that happened 60-70 years ago.
People always have to be wary when politicians try to use fear or greed to motivate the people to keep them in power.
Pundit–Lifted millions/billions out of poverty? The only people we have helped out are East Europeans. Anybody else, especially people of color, have experienced anything but support from the U.S. We throw money at Africa, saying our contribution is helping the situation. While doing this, we flat out ignore infrastructure. It is basic truth taught in Econ 1101 that if you throw 10 million dollars at a country without infrastructure, it retards growth by 5%. Conversely, if you apply that 10 million to a country with infrastructure, it promotes growth by 5%. The former has been the case throughout.
How can you say we lift people abroad out of poverty when our own government and her laws punish poor people for being poor? The situation for a woman is set up to where, and Bush has reiterated this as well, that the only “real” viable option for a woman in financial problems is marriage. Further, our treatment of immigrants is absolutely atrocious–they’re some of the most marginalized groups of people in the West.
So tell me, where is your evidence to support such a lofty claim? Don’t tell me Iraq. We’ve promoted sectarian violence, instability and terrorism in the region. Our current expenditures in Iraq have surpassed the amount of money we spent on the Marshall Plan–we rebuilt the entire continent of Europe with the money we’ve spent on a single nation! Not to mention that the deaths incurred by the war and our sanctions have surpassed the number killed under Hussein.
This does not even begin to take into account Latin America or Asia. I call bullshit, sir.
Brett, and who is supposed to build that infrastructure? Who is supposed to take the money and direct it to where it should go? And how exactly is the US supposed to build this infrastructure on soil that is, in fact, not in the hands of the US? And is in fact in the hands of people who use “colonialists” as a distracting enemy?
As for sanctions, trade is not a duty. It is purely optional. Or perhaps you were willing to fund Saddam’s torture rooms and genocide as long as he threw a few scraps to people?
the only people we have helped out are East Europeans.
Yeah, because Marxism was strictly an Eastern European thing. Sure.
How can you say we lift people abroad out of poverty when our own government and her laws punish poor people for being poor?
Stop trying to compare the impoverished in the Third World to the impoverished in America. In the Third World, poverty is a strong indicator of malnutrition. In the United States, poverty is a strong indicator of obesity. See the difference?
So tell me, where is your evidence to support such a lofty claim? Don’t tell me Iraq. We’ve promoted sectarian violence, instability and terrorism in the region.
I didn’t support this war because I don’t see many prospects for democracy in a very tribal country like Iraq, unfortunately and yes, given that, sectarian violence and terrorist tend to be outcomes. However, to say we “promote” violence is bullshit. We do nothing of the sort.
Not to mention that the deaths incurred by the war and our sanctions have surpassed the number killed under Hussein.
Huh? What alternative did we have to sanctions all those years? Let Saddam rearm? If the sanctions killed, it was because Saddam squandered and stole the money. I suppose you are citing the highly questionable Lancet study for your casualty figures also.
Speaking of Iraq, take a look at the Autonomous Kurdish Region. Better known as Iraqi Kurdistan. They’re flourishing. They *don’t* have terrorism. And they took everything Saddam had to throw on them, and have the mass-graves to prove it.
To them, the US *is* a great big knight in shining armor. And by and large, the average Iraqi is a great deal more optimistic than the average Western citizen, even in terrorism-rife areas, because now they have a chance of a future. Something they didn’t have for several decades. They have hope.
I mistyped. At the beginning, I meant to say Western Europe, not Eastern Europe.
Kalik: To ask me if I wanted to fund Saddam is ludicrous. I’m by no means a fan of the scum. But do you really think that our sanctions against Iraq hurt Saddam’s lifestyle? If anything, it made the lives of innocent Iraqis that much harder. Saddam did enough to his own people without our starving their people. Trade is not a right, you’re correct on that. But we need to strongly reconsider how we handle these type of situations. The only people who suffered were the Iraqis, not Saddam.
Additionally, we ARE promoting sectarian violence. The US has been giving money to the Saudis, the Salafiyya and Israel to combat Iran’s growing presence. It was even published (on a much later date) on CNN the other day that US foreign policy promotes the Sunni-Shii’a divide. It is in the interest to current US interests for the Sunnis to run Iraq–a Shii’a led government means a larger platform for Iran, Syria and Hizbollah.
Tommy: A nutritional problem is a nutritional problem, no matter which end it falls on. The catch is that these poor, “obese” people are just as malnourished. The food that they’re forced to consume is absolute poison. As a result, they inherit weight problems and health issues not because they’re fat or lazy, but rather because the food that they can afford is loaded with chemicals and preservatives. This is one of the many reasons why there’s cyclical poverty: those born in these situations live with them and find it nearly impossible to escape.
And the Kurdish…yes, they’re an amazing people in a horrible situation. They’ve helped us plenty of times (this war and the previous). But in exchange for their promise, we said we’d help them achieve Kurdistan. However, we backed out on that promise the first time. This time, and this is coming from a friend who was in the war, we’re likely to do the same thing.
And as far as us being that big knight in shining armor. Maybe that was so, initially. That’s far from the truth. Let the man who toppled the Saddam statue (you know, the one where we put an American flag on his head and the civilians tore it down) tell it in his own words.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/49817
But do you really think that our sanctions against Iraq hurt Saddam’s lifestyle?
Yes. Yes they did. Your sanctions hurt Saddam, and would have hurt him big time if not for the Food for Oil fiasco. Which should have been named Palaces for Oil. And even with all this, he didn’t have enough funds to pursue his expansionist goals, be it ethnically within the country or militarily without.
It is in the interest to current US interests for the Sunnis to run Iraq–a Shii’a led government means a larger platform for Iran, Syria and Hizbollah.
Blargh? Are you out of your mind? Firstly, the Shi’a currently rule Iraq. Secondly, It’s the Sunni that are the real threat terrorist-wise. The Shi’a are only a real threat to the Sunnis and Israel. Don’t throw conspiracy theories at me, even if CNN gave them a platform.
Oh, and by the way, Syria is not Shi’a. Just so you know.
This time, and this is coming from a friend who was in the war, we’re likely to do the same thing.
If you decide to pull out of there just like that? Absolutely. If you decide to abandon your responsibilities in Iraq, then you will also abandon the Kurds. It’s 100% in your interest for the Kurds to have their own state, but it’s a shame many in the US don’t even see the issue in the first place.
And there are two articles I’d like you to read, Brett.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001417.html
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001419.html
Just to expand your horizons a little. Things are a bit more complicated usually, than how they seem.
Of course the Shii’a are now running Iraq. The population there is overwhelmingly within that group. But I promise you that the elections weren’t favorable to us. Why would the Bush regime want a country led by the same religious sect that runs our (current) biggest “enemy?”
A divide among the two means that we can attack Iran, probably via Israel, on the basis that Iran is upsetting the progress in Iraq. Why do you think there’s been more activity from naval ships in the Gulf? Israel has a vested interest to rid itself of Hizbollah and its funder the Iranians. Same thing for the US.
By the way, I don’t buy this “the Sunnis are the real terrorist threat!” That’s an awfully large blanket of blame to put on a people.
Finally, who said anything about withdrawal? Our clumsy president has said he’ll fight tooth and nail to stay in Iraq until the “job” (whatever that is anymore) is done. Whether we stay or go, I’m unfortunately doubtful that we’ll support a Kurdistan movement. It just doesn’t seem to be worth it to our government.
I appreciate the articles. I’m well aware how complicated the situations are–I’m spending my life working on them.
Why would the Bush regime want a country led by the same religious sect that runs our (current) biggest “enemy?”
Religious sect does not matter as much as you think. And on the contrary, the interest here would be to create a “good Shi’a, bad Shi’a” routine to further alienate Iran. And speaking of which, it’s Iran that wants you as an enemy, not the other way around. Internal unity is very fickle in Iran.
And if the goal is to further harm Iran, then a strong Kurdish state is a must. It means destabilizing Iran via its large Kurdish minority that would wish to become part of its own nation.
And no, that wasn’t a blanket statement regarding the Sunnis. It is in the Sunni community, very much due to radical (more radical that is, than the norm) Saudi clerics that we are in this current mess. The biggest issues are currently within the Sunni Muslim community, not the Shi’a. Observe Iraq, for example. The Sunni terrorists blow themselves up, along with just about any civilian in the area, be he Shi’a or Sunni. The Shi’a terrorists use ethnic cleansing methods.
Both are revolting, but you and I can see who the more mentally disturbed of the two is.
Focus less on Bush-bashing, and more on understanding the underlying currents in the mess that is the Middle-East. The real mistake of the Bush administration is that it tried to make the occupation of Iraq low-key, thus putting ‘image’ issues in the fore and Iraq’s security down the drain. The great big rush into creating a “stable independent democracy” without securing it beforehand was part of that.
Your internal politics meant a lot of mistakes were made. And personally, I think Rumsfeld ought to be in prison, so incompetent he was.
Leave a Comment