Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:21:09 -0400
From: Mike Allen (mikeallen@adan.kingston.net)
To: Richard Geib (cybrgbl@deltanet.com)
Subject: Your Response to Anshul
Dear Richard,
I am writing regarding your response to Anshul (and the tone of your
entire site). While it's true that Saddam Hussein has committed heinous
acts and seems to be a not very nice person, your blind hatred for him
smacks of media brainwashing. The media portrayed the United States'
interests in freeing Kuwait from Iraq as entirely noble and de-humanized
the war completely. It showed that the U.S. Government has finally
perfected the propaganda comb-overs that cover up its own interests.
Interests like maintaining oil prices and protecting the interests of
American multi-nationals.
If America cared so much about the invasion of Kuwait, why has it
ignored invasions of the past such as Germany taking over Czechoslovakia
(perhaps because it was their pals in Britain handing over the country)
and why has it taken over so many other countries itself (stealing
Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas from Mexico; stealing Cuba
from the Spanish (neither of whom had the right to own it))? Why did it
object so strongly to Kuwait's invasion when it itself (directly and
indirectly) has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile,
Brazil, Granada, and many others? The answer is that it didn't care
about Kuwait, it cared that the anti-American Hussein was now in control
of more oil. His human rights violations were simply a convenient
excuse. They were, of course, inexcusable, but rest assured that even
had he been a perfect gentleman to the Kuwaitis, America would have
intervened. If they had nothing to hide in the Gulf War, why did all
news regarding the war have to be approved by the military?
You asked why Iraq is not more developed, having so much oil money.
First of all, Iraq is not alone in its maldevelopedness among
oil-producing nations. Look at Qatar, the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, etc.
The reason all this money hasn't "developed" the country or saved the
starving, impoverished people is that the oil money doesn't go to the
people, it goes to the few tycoons who own the oil rigs. The system is
little different in the U.S.A.
You put forth the idea that military spending wasted the money that
might otherwise go to the poor. Although I wouldn't put it past Mr.
Hussein to spend the money on something equally unhelpful if he wasn't
buying arms, this is a point with which I agree. However, this spending
of money is one thing with which the United States agrees. They're own
budget includes military spending that VASTLY outweighs any other facet
of outgoing money, yet is it military that the government slashes
mercilessly? No, similar to how Saddam deals with things, they cut
money to social programs, health, education, and things that ordinary
people might actually care about. Oh wait, it seems that you DO care
about your countries military exploits. But wouldn't be much more able
to point out Iraq's poor as a flaw if your own country didn't have any?
Lastly, you badmouth Hussein's one-party dictarorship and crushing of
any opposition party. The two-party system of the U.S.A., in which both
parties, disregarding their rhetoric, are virtually the same is little
better. And the fascist laws laid down after the Russian Revolution to
prevent other parties from springing up is only different than Saddam's
opposition-crushing in its covertness.
In closing, I agree that Saddam Hussein is an inhuman monster and a
fierce despot. But in labelling his country evil, you should look to
your own country's evils as well. Perhaps Anshul convinced himself that
his apple was an orange, but you seem to have had your government and
media's propaganda do the job for you.
- Mike Allen
Dear Mike,
I read your e-mail about the "evil" and seemingly omnipotent United States with interest, but unfortunately find it a re-hashing of old arguments that failed to persuade long ago. Although you claim that the mass media "brainwashed" me and all of America, the newspapers and air waves were full of voices in the United States raising the same issues you do now during the Gulf War to little effect. Most people by use of their reason and judgement could see the Gulf War as a mix of defending Arab, American, Canadian, W. European and Japanese interests as well as a right recompense for Saddam Hussein after his invading/annexing/raping Kuwait.
But then the whole question to me revolves around the following question: What country would you like to see as guarantor of power in a volatile and strategically vital area such as the Persian Gulf? The United States or Hussein's Iraq? I know what is my answer to that question, as well as that of the vast majority of the world. And I sure as hell suspect you would have a hard time finding a critic of America's role in the Gulf War on the streets of Kuwait City.
Of course, you fail to mention the fact that the United States has shrunk its military hugely since the demise of the Soviet Union and is on the verge of balancing its budget for the first time in decades. It is simply not true that the American military budget is not immune to budget trimming. And the comparison of poor people in Iraq and in the United States is enough to take one's breath away! Poor people the world over immigrate to the United States in the hopes of increasing their economic fortunes. With a little luck and hard work, many of them acheive a measure of success. Recent changes in government policy notwithstanding, the United States still is the land of opportunity for millions of poor people with drive and discipline. If the United States was simply an handful of robber barons living in opulence with the rest of the squalid poor eating cake, poor immigrants voting with their feet (like mine a century ago) would hardly continue by hook or crook to come to America. Iraq can hardly claim such a thing. Poverty is indigenous in one degree or another in every country in the world, but the measure of each perhaps it the ability poor people have to climb the economic ladder. Such an auspicious economic environment is better fostered by a free capitalist economy than by government paternalism.
And all this about the two-party political system in the United States being the same as Hussein's one-party dictatorship is pure nonsense which ignores the main difference between a free people and one that is not - the right to remove a regime through popular vote. Your specious e-mail fairly wreaks with such failures to distinguish the forest from the trees.
And as for myself as spokesman/cheerleader of Uncle Sam in my webpages ("braiwashed by the media"), let me say right here I am no big fan of the United States government (or the mass media) and have complained loudly and often in my webpages when it has taken an action or proposed an idea which I thought contrary to the principles upon which that nation was founded (Communications Decency Act, Iran-Contra Affair, multiculturalism, etc.) and various other shortcomings in America (determinism in the universities, widespread drug use). Along with the Founding Fathers I believe that the love of freedom would preserve the country, and that the love of our country would preserve our freedom. Yet I also believe that all government by necessity must make war on Liberty - such is the nature of Authority, and that is a fact with which I long ago made my peace. Individuals must regards government with suspicion and try to separate the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the lies. As Thomas Paine said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." It is with this sensibility that I view the U.S. government - as do most Americans. And I sometimes despair at the idiocy of my own government until I look abroad at a country like Iraq and in the flash of a moment gain a measure of perspective.
Whatever mistakes and/or innaccuacies the media might have made in reporting the Gulf War, I reject your assertion that the war was "dehumanized." Make no mistake about this, Mike: I knew full well during the Gulf War that Allied forces were killing Iraqis in great numbers and I approved. Through my vote and tax dollars, I supported the war since as I thought the cause just and worth the effort. I celebrate the death of no man, but in war I believe in acting swiftly and decisively towards victory and a subsequent end to the bloodshed - all else is folly. When the air war started, I thought to myself: "Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war!" I thought this even as I truly felt sorry for all those miserable Iraqi soldiers surrendering at the first opportunity after getting absolutely hammered day after day, week after week in the middle of the Godforsaken desert. Yet my chief impression afterwards was astonishment that the U.S. government could have undertaken such a large effort without screwing it up.
But then it is always easier to say all power and authority is merely a tool to screw the common man who, poor sap, is brainwashed and doesn't even know he is a slave. That is why, I guess you would argue, the world needs persons such as yourself who really do know better. It is an old and tired argument which manages to be half-true and totally wrong at the same time. I am as little persuaded now as in the past.
Sincerely,
Richard Geib
