The Moral Myth!

sovtek

With all the anti-war, pro-war back and forth over the past year or so...it's hard not to get drawn into the wrong arguments.

wasabi

much as i enjoy george monbiot's writing i think he's sort of stating what is obvious to most people, namely that the US are in iraq for oil and for influence in the middle east.

and states will always act in their own interest and that's ok. back after world war II when the US set up the marshall plan, they helped europe a lot. but that was in their own self interest because they needed strong allies and trading partners.

when the eu was set up it was european countries acting collectively in their self interest and this has helped ireland and various other members enormously and been overall a force for good in recent history as far as I can tell.

however the warped personalities and ideologies currently controlling the us are not perceiving correctly where their interests lie. their current actions are counterproductive as far as controlling terrorism and attacks on us targets. they're increasingly unpopular with many us citizens in general as far as i can see.

or perhaps the regime sees exactly where their personal interests lie i.e. short term profit of the various businesses/industries they have a stake in.

geopolitics is not a zero sum game, you cannot win by keeping someone else down, and the sooner the us junta is replaced by a regime that will act sensibly in the medium/long term interest of the us the better.

DadaKopf

You mean as sensible as General Wesley Clarke, the trigger happy nuke-ophile?

I don't think it's OK for states to operate in their own interests. I think state's governments should obey the wishes of its citizens in democratic countries. Unfortunately, what we have is a global hyperpower, effectively unanswerable to its citizens, who claims that is is OK for states - i.e. themselves and their friends - to act like that. They claim it's OK for them to behave in any way neccessary to 'protect the people' who elect them when we all know who's interests they're acting on behalf of.

As you pointed out, the US assumed the role of world power/paymaster of the universe because she was the only one not to have been shattered in WWII. Apart from the USSR. And you rightly commented how plans like the Marshall Plan, Nato, the IMF were really defensive measures - beyond the enormous need there was for US aid in European reconstruction and kickstarting the world economy.

But it was this nascent Cold War dynamic that eventually gave the two rival superpowers carte blanche to support all kinds of nasty regimes in the interests of, ostensibly 'world development', but realistically the defence of one country (or one country's class) and it's 'old' friends in Europe. Of course the Russians did the exact same.

Now we're all about co-operation. Now we're all about viewing world politics as the opposite of a zero-sum game. That's because the world is no longer polarized like it was. It seems to me that the Washington Hawks are actually attempting to artificially re-polarize the world because either (1) they really believe bipolarity breeds a balance of power or (2) they were genuinely caught out by the fall of communism and are desperately scrabbling make sense of the world. So, they retreat back to all that they know - zero-sum politics.

And there's every indication that this is creeping back into European politics. The current trade dispute may be a return to mercantilist political-economy whereby trade itself is seen as a political game in terms of winners and losers.

I'm not saying states don't act in their own self interests, I think the logic of the international system dictates that they do. I just think that every effort should be made to avoid that, form the bottom up. 55 years of the Cold War may have brought some kind of order to the world, but at what price? What kind of 'peace' did we secure?

At least now, we just have 'war'. Hot war. Maybe now, our judgements can be ebtter informed and we'll start getting a little change around here. I live in hope.

wasabi

hah, no preferably not clarke for president. or oprah winfrey for that matter. someone in between...

are we interpreting this question of interest in the same way? by 'states acting in their own interest' i mean that states should act to protect their citizenry and economy and generally try to make life good. this is a good way for states to act.

they should also cooperate with each other, not wage war or interfere in internal political processes, cooperate economically, provide aid and loans on reasonably terms where necessary and cooperate in the areas of international law and the environment. because all this is in the interest of all states.

you point out that the cold war led to 'the support of all sorts of nasty regimes'. yes it did. and the consequences are with us today and probably will be in 50 years. not in anyone's interest. i don't think it even really helped either the us or the ussr much at any stage. just kept them very busy waging constant war in chechnya, vietnam, afghanistan etc.

and i see what you mean with the polarizing, except now instead of the communists we have the axis of evil, which is divisive rhetoric if ever i've heard it. but this current stuff in iraq is not getting them anywhere, except those select few at the top who may profit economically and politically.

for instance in the way that kissinger made the vietnam war and the vietnam war made kissinger (see the trial of henry kissinger by christopher hitchens, excellent book but might make you queasy). similar nasty revelations about iraq will no doubt be coming to light in a decade or two.

the way forward is to keep putting forward the ideas of countries working together rather than squabbling over the toys. i think we're mostly thinking the same things here, except i'm saying it would be great if states would act rationally in their interest (i.e. cooperate) and you're saying iy would be great if states weren't antagonistic. amounts to the same thing.

basically it all comes back to the fact that the biggest global power basically elects its leaders according to who has the most money and then they can basically do what the hell they like until reelection time. oh, i could go on and on but you get me. i miss the un

spanner

i agree the USA is in iraq for oil but unlike russia the USA just wants to pay market value for the oil they definately dont want to occupy iraq. it will be better for the iraqi people in the long run. and it will be better for the irish people. whats the alternative, let them socialist and greens control the way things are done, well then we will throughly be f**ked.

sovtek

Originally posted by spanner
i agree the USA is in iraq for oil but unlike russia the USA just wants to pay market value for the oil they definately dont want to occupy iraq.

Which is why they are building permanent bases and a few key members of the Bush regime signed off on a document stating that exact aim.

it will be better for the iraqi people in the long run.

That's been tried before...Saddam was the eventual result of that little British escapade

and it will be better for the irish people.

I'm curious as to how you logically conclude that?

whats the alternative, let them socialist and greens control the way things are done, well then we will throughly be f**ked.

Because the world is in such a wonderful state at the moment even though the socialists nor the greens have ever had a go at it.

wasabi

well the situation in iraq certainly wouldn't be the way it is if the greens had more power.

can't find the reference now unfortunately but remember reading that if all people in us drove small efficient cars rather than the tanks many of them do drive, the quantity of oil saved daily would be the same as the daily output of iraq.
and that's not to mention what would happen if they started doing a bit of urban planning and developing their public transport networks.

they could even shock horror invest in alternative power sources.

not that we can talk mind, i read as well recently that irish people drive on average a fair chunk of mileage more than the yanks, something like their 19K miles per annum to our 25K. which frankly shocked me but I imagine it's down to people driving long commutes to dublin from outside, people down the country needing to go a long way to do shoppping, etc. however i don't know how what the relative average size of cars is, i'd imagine we're a fair bit smaller.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by wasabi
well the situation in iraq certainly wouldn't be the way it is if the greens had more power.

can't find the reference now unfortunately but remember reading that if all people in us drove small efficient cars rather than the tanks many of them do drive, the quantity of oil saved daily would be the same as the daily output of iraq.
and that's not to mention what would happen if they started doing a bit of urban planning and developing their public transport networks.

they could even shock horror invest in alternative power sources.

not that we can talk mind, i read as well recently that irish people drive on average a fair chunk of mileage more than the yanks, something like their 19K miles per annum to our 25K. which frankly shocked me but I imagine it's down to people driving long commutes to dublin from outside, people down the country needing to go a long way to do shoppping, etc. however i don't know how what the relative average size of cars is, i'd imagine we're a fair bit smaller.

Yes but we may drive more miles, but Americans don't buy 1.2 litre cars, they buy 3.5 litre or 5 litre vehicles.
Invest in alternative power? Good luck, what do you think the big-hitters (Car manufacturers, oil companies, like the biggest of the biggies) are going to say about that.
And if the Greens were in power it wouldn't matter what we were saying, nobody would be listening.

No offence, but that all a bit cloud-cookoo-land. It would be great if we lived in a world where everyone held hands and sang
"wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?"
"If the entire population of the world drove smaller cars we'd save the daily amount of oil output of iraq"
is great. Fantastic! But that's not going to happen is it???

wasabi

Yes but we may drive more miles, but Americans don't buy 1.2 litre cars, they buy 3.5 litre or 5 litre vehicles.

Yes, I did mention that in my post.

"If the entire population of the world drove smaller cars we'd save the daily amount of oil output of iraq. Fantastic! But that's not going to happen is it???"

It would all right if it was legislated for, or perhaps taxation was used to encourage it. Similar issue to plastic bags here, we're using a lot less of them now than last year, no? As far as I'm concerned, we need much more green legislation and as for the people who think they need a humvee to drive to work, well they don't. So legislate against it or at least make them pay a reasonable sum towards the pollution and war caused for them to do so.

Hardly going to happen when the US president used to be an oilman, though. I know this. This is not to say it shouldn't happen.

chill

Originally posted by sovtek
With all the anti-war, pro-war back and forth over the past year or so...it's hard not to get drawn into the wrong arguments.

Yes it is, especially when his kind of arrant lies and nonsense gets taken seriously by people who who can't be bothered thinking for themselves.
Monbiot makes a pathetic effort at constructing a phantom argument and tries to support it with lies and deception.
He tries to suggest that super powers act in their own interest when anyone with a brain knows that ALL states including our own do exactly the same thing.

He writes about the Iraqi victims with contempt for the truth of the evil of the Saddam regime and tries to wrap himself in a sanctimonious blanket that is sickening in it's hypocracy.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
He writes about the Iraqi victims with contempt for the truth of the evil of the Saddam regime and tries to wrap himself in a sanctimonious blanket that is sickening in it's hypocracy. [/B]

Unlike the hypocracy in condemning a brutal dictator that "we" propped up and supported for 30 some-odd years. :rolleyes:

DadaKopf

Yes, Monbiot agrees that states act in their own interests. Unlike you, he attaches a value judgement to this reality - this shouldn't be the case when it means the most powerful countries dominate all others.

This reality leads Monbiot to think that there should be powerful institutions put in place to control the appetites of the most powerful countries in order to make the international system more equal and more just. Those that commit crimes should be held to account and punished.

Kind of obvious really. Of course, you're too busy forgetting all this, effectively supporting both Bush and Saddam.

You said how Monbiot and people like him conceal the truth in 'lies and nonsense' like this. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove your point. Otherwise your point is pure nonsense.

Oh, and I don't think you'd find Monbiot or anyone against this war supporting Saddam Hussein and his regime. What a dumb comment.

mr_angry

Fantastic! But that's not going to happen is it???

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try though, does it? It'll certantly never happen if we take the attitude that its impossible to change the world. That's like saying "Look at the state of the world - it'll never change - lets all be complete b*stards to each other!"