First comment in response : Jordan starts the piece by saying “many” intellectuals are effeminate (basis for this comment?) The next sentence then suggests “all” intellectual men are effeminate, and therefore anti-war. Nice leap … Question : How do you resolve the intellectual community who supported the US operations in Afghanistan, yet opposed military intervention in Iraq ? I submit there are many intellectuals who fit this profile. Your claim of intellectual men ( hence liberal hence effeminate , lol) opposing all wars cannot possibly resolve this observation.
Next comment: Jordan’s implication that the real opposition to war ( with respect to intellectual men and women) is their innate physical inferiority … By that rationale, muscle-bound meatheads should all support war, any war, baseless or not, since they are physically superior to the average male, I guess, as that is the implicit argument. Maybe we should conduct a poll of muscle-bound meatheads and see if that holds water, as both arguments are virtually identical.
Next : My comment on the next paragraph, which tangentially involves foreign policy, self-esteem, the lens through which a discipline is learned (?) and career advancement, is the following : what is the point of this paragraph? Jordan’s first sentence in the last paragraph is about the only sensible comment in this pointless drivel.
General comments : People sometimes support wars when there is a justifiable reason for it, such as imminent danger to the citizenry. The current Iraq occupation does not qualify on said criterion. There are times when action is necessary. I am quite confident that the intellectual men of the world will concede this point. However, if there is a smokescreen of reasons for making war, by virtue of its intellectual nature, the intelligentsia can discern propaganda from valid reasons. One may argue fine points of questionable wars the US has been involved with, and there are many illegitimate wars, and many bogus reasons spoon-fed to the US citizenry. If you wish, we may take up this argument later … You mentioned a few of the following leaders, so I’ll add comments :
- Noriega : CIA-installed puppet who stopped obeying orders . His downfall had nothing to do with narcotics flow, as the media suggests.
- Qhuadafi : a sacrificial lamb of the Reagan administration, whose downfall can be traced to a MOSSAD operation (see Ostrovsky) and the US military antagonizing (by the US Navy and Air Force (including missions over Libyan air space))
- Hussein : former US – backed leader who fought against the then-enemy of the US , Iran, in a war in which chemical and biological weapons were given to Hussein by the US to fight the Iranians. Why was Iran a problem to begin with ? Go back to 1953, the CIA -directed coup of Mossadegh, a leader who had already installed democracy in Iran, who was pro-Western, and very principled. See Kinzer.
- Arbenz in Guatamala in 1954 : President overthrown by the CIA so that the US could ensure the profits of United Fruit Company (and Henry Cabot Lodge). Never mind that almost 90% of Guatamalans voted him into office.
- Allende in Chile , 1973 : coup by the CIA
- US government backing of Suharto, a leader of a movement in Indonesia which exterminated 1/3 of the population of East Timor. Him we liked , him we backed for corporate reasons.
- JFK, before his assassination, was close to recalling American troops from Vietnam. LBJ escalated US involvement, much to the elation of Brown-Root, which built every single air base in Vietnam, and made billions. By the way, Brown-Root was put on the map by LBJ when he was a state senator in Texas, and his wife was a leading shareholder. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the escalation …
We fought wars in Vietnam and Korea to eliminate communism. In 1989, the wall fell, and communism died. Did the US reduce its military, as common sense would suggest, since the 50 year communist scourge was over? No, the emerging threat then was “Global terrorism” … Wars are fought for reasons different than stated by governments. The citizenry should dig deep to understand the real reasons behind war.
Since WWII and the US’s emergence from the Great Depression, the US economy has been completely dependent on the war machine. Without war, without conflict, the US economy seriously falters. Reasons for making war have to be manufactured by the government, big media, and corporate America. The best article that one can read on who profits from war was written by a retired Marine Corps General named Smedley Butler entitled “War is a racket” …. Please read, as one may learn what goes on behind the scenes … If one takes the time to learn about US involvement in global conflict, it is very damning. Support for or opposition to war has nothing to do with one’s sub-conscious propensities, lack of self-esteem, one’s intellectual capacities, one’s feelings of inferiority or superiority, or one’s “skill set”.
It’s a shame that the US citizen has become accustomed to war. It has become common, and the effects of war trivialized by its now mundane nature. The US soldiers whose lives are put on the line by war-mongers deserve an apparatus, government and social, that places high value on their lives and the lives of others, not using them as pawns in a grand game.
Posted at 09:33 pm by Scottie
|Posted by John Broussard @ 12/06/2004 11:37 PM PST|
I read your response on Butch’s comment link, and thought it was worthy of an entry. I said so before I refreshed the website and saw you upgraded your comment to a post. I apologize, because that’s what intellectuals like myself are good at…apologizing is one of my best skills.