Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies".  Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce.  (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.)  And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths.  I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them.  There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...

1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!


2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!

TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
 
 
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!

TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico.  As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
 
 
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!

TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11!  Big picture? They never really were.  And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.)  But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
 
 
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!

TRUTH: See Iran.  Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.  He's got a pretty good gig going.  A decent little lifestyle for himself.  There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
 
 
6) The World Hates America!

TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
 
 
So... what do I see as the trend here?
 
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding.  That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
 
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone!  But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub?  Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us?  Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides.  We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it!   But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments.  Except that, no, we really DON'T.  OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him.  But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form.  Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them!  So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell.  Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED.  And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy?  (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)


So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear.  In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive.  Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists.  He is (as usual) SPOT ON.  The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.

Now... as for #6...

Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:

The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.

Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda.  But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...

THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things. 


WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things! 

Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case?  At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World!  And at BEST?  They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy!  I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us.  Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully?  And eventually?

They will.

Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"

Oki?

Anyone?

Bueller? 

Bueller?

Conservatives: Here and There

Yesterday on NPR, I learned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was going to try to release the jailed American hiker Sarah Shourd to some kind of grand fanfare, and try and turn it into bit positive propaganda for himself, hopefully earning him some credit with the West. Fat chance, but…Unfortunately for him, the far more conservatives Clerics, unhappy with the “progressive” Ahmadinejad (WTF?!) and the reforms he’s proposed, undermined his efforts and sent Shourd back in the dead of night, to as little fanfare as possible.

Now… calling Ahmadinejad “progressive” is purely the opinion of the Neolithic Clerics that rule that country, NOT my own. But the fact that the Clerics in Iran are actually that much farther to the Right of (or that much more conservative than) Ahmadinejad got me thinking…

In the past (frequently on MMFA) I’ve made the statement that all of the best Republicans(Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower)  were Progressives and all the worst Democrats (Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson) were Conservatives. I’d like to expand on that logic and point out that the Iranians who most resemble Americans are Progressives, and the Americans who most resemble Iranians are Conservatives. Funny how that works, no?

Take away the two groups’ religious and national Brand Names, and tell me how the Conservatives in this country don’t want to make us MORE LIKE Iran, in terms of PUBLIC POLICY. Now, we’re not there yet and it could be argued that it’s an exaggeration to say that the American Right wants to take us quite that far. I’m not so sure about that myself, but the question still stands: If Iran is so terrible, why are the Conservatives trying so hard to make us MORE LIKE THEM?

BTW… One of my ex-Bosses is Iranian. He was an asshole, but it was interesting to hear his opinion that even though he’s pretty Conservative, in the American sense of the word, (neither of which were the reason I thought he was an asshole, BTW!) that the biggest failure of the Bush administration, the REAL REASON that the Iraq War was such a bad idea and our foreign policy under Bush was so disastrous, was that it killed the Progressive movement in IRAN, and gave the Hard-Liners (that's what we call "Conservatives" when they live in other countries) all the ammo they needed to whip up Anti-American sentiment (which had been declining during the Clinton years), crush the Progressives (who were gaining prominence), stifle (and repeal) reforms and bring Iran back to squarely being our arch-enemy in the region. And neither Conservatives in America and Conservatives in Iran have any intention of ever changing that dynamic, becuase they both benefit from it politically.  And both Conservatives in America and Conservatives in Iran totally SUCK because they think that way.

So just remember:

1) The best Republicans were all Progressives and the worst Democrats were all Conservatives.


2) The Iranians who most resemble Americans are Progressives, and the Americans who most resemble Iranians are Conservatives.

Friday fun, plus: Let's invade Syria! (Just kidding)

Friday Fun: I LOVE this:



Now, on to politics! LOL

In my last post, in unequivocal favor of President Obama sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, unveiling his new strategy, and setting a timetable for withdrawal, I mentioned that I was against the Iraq War from the start. I was; and I always have been. Even after Colin Powell’s UN speech, when I came the closest to supporting it, I was still more inclined to think, “Saddam’s let the inspectors back in, so let them do their jobs now!”

Also, you know something stinks when the reason for it keeps changing. First it was about 9/11. But there wasn’t even fraudulent evidence to back that up. Then it was about WMD’s, which did have some fraudulent evidence backing it up. And once that was all discovered for the codswallop that it was, Iraq was supposed to be about the War on Terror and spreading democracy in the Middle East... something that could have been accomplished just as well FROM AFGHANISTAN!

And, to earn me some conservative / hawk cred, my opposition was not based on legally or morality or international treaty or anything like that. As a freedom loving, pro-human-rights liberal, I am loath to be put in the position of DEFENDING a demonic scumbag like Saddam Hussein on principle. As far as his sovereign rights go? I personally wish the international community would do more to take down leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, General Than Shwe, etc… Now: I know why they don’t! But at some point a government becomes so cruel, so antithetical to basic human rights that I believe they lose the right to this otherwise principled protection of their sovereignty.

So why did I oppose the war? Not for any of my liberal sensibilities but rather because, relative to the War of Terror, it made absolutely no sense from a tactical standpoint! Iraq was the most secular country in the entire region! It’s government had a history of taking a hard line against the very radical Islamic groups most associated with terrorism. And the biggest point: all of their WMD’s were GONE. (Although we were utterly stupid to force him to prove that since for years, their fear of him and those weapons kept IRAN in check!) As much as I hated the man, it would have made far more sense to prop him up, lift the sanctions, work out a treaty so that we can use his air space, and continue to use him to KEEP IRAN IN CHECK while we PROSECUTE THE WAR ON TERROR.

But there’s far more to demonstrate how absolutely incompetent Bush and his military planners were. Rather than do as I outlined above, they got themselves stuck in an expensive quagmire that quickly consumed almost all of the goodwill that Bush had,both from the international community and here at home. (And it’s a lot harder to fight terrorists when countries who you need to share their intelligence with you don’t like you very much!) And, at the end of the day, dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been enough. Replacing them with a secure, stable, secular, democratic government and wiping out every last remnant of Islamic Power, would have been a very effective deterrent for any other country that we would then need to deal with. If they knew we meant business, and we had the precedent of the Amanita that I’ve described and that George W. Bush no doubt envisioned, but failed to achieve, even the most hard-line country might be willing to negotiate and deal rather than face the extinction of their system of government and backwards way of life.

But “Bush” and “Hussein” may as well be "Cats" and "Dogs." So, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s fate was as certain as Bush’s ineptitude. (I always wondered how much Hussein hated Bin Laden for 9/11. He HAD to know the handwriting was on the wall!) But here’s the rub: Even though it was completely unnecessary and tactically unwise to open a second front in the war, if you’re hell-bent of invading someone else, I still fail to see how Iraq would rank as your first choice! If, back in 2003, you felt that we absolute MUST invade another country? Let me offer the same one that I did even back then:

SYRIA.

Sounds odd, perhaps. But that’s only because the media hasn’t spent the last year trying to convince you it’s a good idea. Without the media’s ridiculous cheerleading for the War in Iraq, congressional Democrats might have had the spine to vote against it unanimously, and Bush might never have even been authorized to go there. Also, John Kerry would have won re-election last year. But no matter how you look at it, it just would have made so much more sense to invade SYRIA:

1) Tactical: Smaller Country, easier to invade. (Less Blood / Treasure.)
2) Justification: HAS Chemical Weapons/WMD’s and linke to terrorsim, where Iraq didn’t.
3) Potential Future Threat: Has at least a civilian nuclear power program, which is more that Iraq does.
4) Religion: Is far more cozy, in fact is RUN BY, Radical Islamists – the very people that we were fighting. Saddam took a hard line AGAINST those same people! Thus knocking out that gov’t would weaken the Radicals influence, whilst getting rid of Saddam, if anything, strengthened it.
5) Terrorism: Syria sponsors terrorism, including attacks on U.S. forces. Iraq did not. Thus groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who really on Syrian support, would be weakened, whereas Al Qaeda actually GREW, though admittedly only for a short time.
6) Iran: Syria is a strong ALLY of Iran – out biggest enemy in the region. So taking out their gov’t would WEAKEN Iran. Iraq, on the other hand, was Iran’s biggest ENEMY, and historically was used as a counterbalance to their power. Toppling Saddam instead strengthened our chief ENEMY, Iran.
7) Balance of Power: Having a puppet government in Syria would strengthen our ally, Israel and create another potentially very strong Ally in Lebanon. Having all these allies, stretching from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, would make it easier for us to negotiate with the Palestinians.
8) Finally: Iran would not be able to come to Syria’s aid, so the conflict would not be likely to broaden, if we had Saddam, continuing to bluff about WMD’s, keeping Iran in check. Other Islamic countries considering an alliance with Iran might think twice after seeing this.

Now, I hope it’s obvious to everyone that I’m not advocating an invasion of Syria! This whole exercise is merely meant to show how utterly stupid it was to invade Iraq. No matter how you look at it, there was nothing we could accomplish in Iraq that we couldn’t have done in Afghanistan and if you are hell-bent on invading an other country unnecessarily, Syria would have been a far better choice, even if they didn’t have a comic-book villain, like Saddam, to use as a poster boy to market the war.

I originally came up with that strategy just before the Iraq War started. Several Conservatives that I shared this with at the time were surprised and impressed that an admitted liberal and anti-Iraq War advocate would have come up with that. I countered that they should be even more dismayed that a simple, independent blogger and admitted liberal had conceived a far superior war strategy than those that they had trusted to RUN THE WAR.