They Hate Us For Our Freedoms? Well, no. They don't.

"They hate us for our freedoms."
Well, no, they don't. 

I've been plowing through Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy.  IMHO, this is where you should go to learn "why they hate us". 

Here's Johnson's summary of the first volume, "Blowback". 

"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "Blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes – as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 – the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia – the area of my academic training – than on the Middle East."

And the second book, "Sorrows Of Empire":

"The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.  I began to study our continuous military buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we currently maintain in other people's countries. This empire of bases is the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony and many of the blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay brings them to our attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims of foreign colonization."

And finally, "Nemesis":

“In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.”

Not everyone is a total geek like me.  Not everyone is willing to plow through three fairly technical and occasionally repetitive books about our disastrous foreign policy decisions, just to hold an informed opinion. 

So as a public service, here's all you need to know about "Blowback", what causes it , and how we're perceived elsewhere in the world. 

For further info, you can still check out Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy". 

Absurditopia is about to declare war on Stupidia, and you are going to lose

Since our Commander-In-Chief and some of his Republican enablers seem determined to start a trade war with China, here's an excerpt from Don Boudreaux's fantasy about what it would be like if real wars were like trade wars. 

Leader of Absurditoptia (A): I say, leader of Stupidia – we demand that you stop occupying that contested strip of land. If you refuse, we’ll have no choice but to shoot our own citizens.

Leader of Stupidia (S): You don’t scare us! That land is ours. And if you do kill some of your own people, make no mistake that we will immediately – and just as cruelly – commence to killing our own people. Courage is our national motto!

(A): Ha! You’re bluffing. But I’m not. I’ve just courageously ordered my troops to mow down in cold blood ten percent of my fellow countrymen. Take that!

(S): How dare you attack you like that! You leave us no choice but to attack us. I am ordering the Stupidian army to slaughter 15 percent of innocent Stupidians here in Stupidia. How do you like them apples?!

(A): You are cruel and inhuman to damage us by killing your people. I hereby instruct all of my fellow Absurditopians to commit suicide! Only then will you nasty Stupidians get your proper comeuppance and we Absurditopians the justice that we are due!

(S): You can’t beat us, you Absurditopian you! Listen up. I’m ordering all of my fellow citizens – Stupidians all! – to commit suicide. We’ll see who emerges victorious!
….

Then a long, long silence.

Try looking at it this way.  If the top executives at Neiman Marcus could pass laws to discourage you from shopping at Target, they would do so.  If the top executives at Target could pass laws to discourage you from shopping at Neiman Marcus, they would do so.  And if you learned that those executives had written those laws, you would have them tarred and feathered.  You would be outraged. 

But when U.S. companies pass laws making Chinese tires or Canadian lumber more expensive, we roll over and take it.  Go figure that one out. 

The picture of the Trade War came from here. 

Ron Quixote

Is there anyone in the world who not only talks the talk AND walks the walk more than Ron Paul? This is from Talking Points Memo:

The House voted 405-1 today for a resolution in support of the Iranian dissidents and condemning the ruling government. And the one man who opposed it was...Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Paul said in his floor speech that he was in "reluctant opposition" to the resolution -- that he of course condemns violence by governments against their citizens. On the other hand, he also doesn't think the American government should act as a judge of every country overseas, and pointed out that we don't condemn countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt that don't even have real elections.

None of these logical points will make any difference, of course. But it's nice to see someone go tilt at this windmill just the same.

Is there any rational person who thinks it's a good idea for a nation to be run by a bunch of Sand Preachers?

No.

Are we going to intervene in their elections?

No.

So does passing U.N. and congressional resolutions against barbaric theocracies do any good at all, other than giving The Sheeple the impression that our leaders are compassionate?

No.

"It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made," Paul said. "I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly."

Picture of Ron Paul provided from here. Don Quixote pic provided from here. Bumpersticker provided from here. Ron Paul's compliment of Obama provided with great reluctance.