Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    

Flagrancy

to Reason

 

blog roll


    They can't write what they thi..., 2003-03-12 00:00:00 | Main | "I should tell you that I been..., 2003-03-13 00:00:00

    Leave it to the New Republic to publish fantasty-land histories in support for war: "For one thing, they overlook the fact that external military force contributed to third-wave developments in Haiti, Panama, and the Balkans." Back that truck up. Far be it from me to point out that in both Haiti and Panama it was a US bootheel that was preventing the development of democracy in the first place, in both countries for close to a century, and that the simple retraction of support for tyranny would have put an expiration date on both countries' dictatorships, and the use of military force in both was to ensure the continued rule of an opulent plutocracy, which by default generally protect US interests. I guess I'm supposed to believe that CIA collaboration with Emmanuel Constant and the creation of FRAPH, and all the convicted Hatian criminals residing in the US, had nothing to do with Aristide's economic reforms that were abruptly abandoned after a particular meeting with one Jimmy Carter. All the last ditch efforts to keep Duvalier in power surely reflected our sincere allegiances to the promotion of democracy.

    Coincidentally Panama could actually use some help disarming.

    US military occupation "pushed Greece, the Philippines, and South Korea toward democratization as well". This is just absurd. US support for three seperate military coups in Greece was "democratization"? Supporting a brutal and indiscriminate counter-insurgency campaign in the Phillipines and enforcing the status quo of serfdom - the peasant insurgents' primary grievance - was "democratization"? Backing Ferdinand all the way through his corrupt dictatoral rule while lauding him the entire time for the democratic virtue of his "constitutional authoritarianism" was "democratization"? What's going on lately is obviously just more support for "democratization". Destroying the self-governing committees that already existed in South Korea when the US landed there in 1945 and slaughtering one-third of the population of Cheju Island was "democratization"? Stalling independence and propping up South Korean autocrats for 30 years with only occasional reservations - expressed in the demand for pre-baked elections - was "democratization"? Fucking with scholarship on Korea to exaggerate an ideological charicature of the North and paint pretty primroses around the South was "democratization"? Authorizing the Kwangju massacre was all about "democratization"?

    The people claiming that US interventions lead to "democratization" are full of unbridled horseshit. We were preventing democratization, and continue to interfere with attempts to rectify the political problems that are inherent in any social order that keeps the vast majority of a population poor, exploited, and landless. What was democratizing in South Korea was not the imposition of US miliitary rule and backing 'politically evolving' dictatorships but land reform and education. What brought democracy to South Korea were the South Koreans - the US role was, at best, reservedly pro-elections when they didn't interfere with more important things, like invading Vietnam. We'll let them rule themselves when they're "ready for democracy", meaning "when we can't get away with it anymore".

    Goddam commissars. Full of more shit than you can shake an ass at.


:: posted by buermann @ 2003-03-12 00:00:00 CST | link





    go ahead, express that vague notion
    Name:
    Email:
    Homepage:
    Comment

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
and
other curmudgeonry

Enforcing
American
Hegemony
- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001


the good book
and other cultural
artifacts


The Autobiography
of
Mother Jones


Contact Info:
buermann[at]
flagrancy[dot]net



"Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind."