Are labor unions beneficial to society, or parasitic?

The following gives the general history of U.S. intervention in the Mideast since World War II:

"ANCIENT HISTORY": U.S. CONDUCT IN THE MIDDLE EAST SINCE WORLD WAR II AND THE FOLLY OF INTERVENTION by Sheldon L. Richman

---

---

---

The REAL TRUTH of U.S. Intervention in Iraq/The Middle East

BOTH SIDES ARE LYING. Those in power always lie in order to promote their program. (And those seeking power also lie.)

Now, here's what's really going on:

The Blunt Truth about Imperialism

The U.S. is an imperialist country. Just like the British Empire and the Roman Empire and the Athenian Empire and the Persian Empire and all the other empires, big and small. In fact, every great nation was arguably an empire which assumed the role of "Policeman of the World" within its respective sphere of influence. In modern times that sphere of influence has become the entire globe.

Empires are not all bad!!!

Empires have been partly good and partly evil. It is popular to say that they were all bad and that imperialism is inherently and totally evil. This is false. Imperialism is a mixture of good and evil.

The evil is well known. What about the good part?

The Roman Empire brought security to millions of inhabitants around the Mediterranean world and northern Europe. There were arguably as many native tribes who supported the Romans in their takeover of Gaul as those who fought against the Romans. They believed the Romans would bring peace and stability to their region. They were probably right.

[What did they say about Caesar when he conquered France? answer: That guy's got a lot of Gaul!]

The British built the great railroad network in India, a great accomplishment and economic advancement for India, without which India would be in much greater poverty today than it is, and which made it possible for that country to support a much larger population.

Perhaps the world's foremost imperialist (and mass murderer) was Alexander the Great. And yet, this monster gave to the world the greatest intellectual gift ever built, the Library at Alexandria, which preserved thousands of ancient writings which would have been lost to history if Alexander had not conquered the Middle East and put his library in Egypt, in a city he arrogantly named after himself as an imperialist foreign occupier.

And U.S. imperialism gave freedom and democracy and prosperity (or the opportunity for this) to 50,000,000 South Koreans, who would have otherwise been absorbed into communist tyranny and oppression. Who can compare the condition of South Korea with North Korea today, over 50 years later, and not recognize the great benefits which the U.S. gained for those 50 million Koreans, at a price of at least 33,000 American lives (or by some accounts, 62,000)?

Those who condemn U.S. imperialism never want to talk about the Korean War. They want to talk about Viet Nam, but the Korean War is off their radar screen, because they cannot face the fact that U.S. imperialism has done good in the world, at least in this case, by saving millions of people from slavery. They are blind to all but the bad part. They are just as dishonest as the Neocons/imperialists they condemn.

And there are hundreds more examples of the good side of imperialism historically.

And what about the "Evil Empire" -- the Soviet Union? Even this empire was not all bad. The Soviet Union supported progress and capitalism in the African nation of Angola, at a time when the anticapitalist terrorist rebel forces under Jonas Savimbi (supported by the U.S.!) were trying to blow up oil refineries in order to wreak havoc in that country and bring down the government. Of course that regime was undemocratic, but only a fool thinks a Savimbi regime would have been any better. No, in that case, the Soviets and their Cuban "puppets" were on the right side, supporting progress and stability, while the U.S. was on the side of terrorism and destruction.

So even the best empire (the U.S.) can sometimes be on the wrong side and the worst evilest empire can sometimes be the good guy.

So, who says imperialism has to always be evil? Not anyone who knows their history (and is honest enough to tell the truth)!

Now, what about the present takeover of Iraq? First off, we must recognize that the Bush Administration was dishonest. Dishonesty is the norm when it comes to war and imperialism, including a just war and justified imperialism.

Both sides are lying about this war!

Of couse Bush lied. And so did FDR lie at the beginning of WW2.

FDR LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!

FDR, in his "Day of Infamy" speech said the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked. That was a lie!

There were many provocations. The U.S. was supplying weapons to the Chinese against whom the Japanese were at war. And the U.S. imposed an oil embargo on Japan, a virtual act of war. There was plenty of provocation. And FDR knew it. He lied.

So was WW2 unjustified? Was the U.S. wrong to wage war against Japan because FDR lied? Of course not! It is not true that because the President lied the war or invasion must be unjustified. You have to look at the merits or pros and cons of the war, the likely harms and benefits, to determine if it is justified or not. The fact that the President lied is irrelevant. All Presidents lie. How could they have ever gotten elected if they never told a lie? Of course they lie. They are liars by nature.

It's in their blood, whether they're Republicans or Democrats.

And those who denounce President Bush as a liar are telling their own lies. Those who oppose the war tell as many lies as those who support it.

They are lying about Bush's lying. For example, they are lying when they say he lied about the uranium in Africa. The President's statement in his state-of-the-union address, about Hussein shopping for uranium in Africa, was a true statement. And Joe Wilson is lying when he says this statement was part of a "network of lies". It was not, because the statement was true.

Not only was President Bush's statement true, but the British intelligence upon which it was based was also probably true. Joe Wilson lies when he says he disproved the British intelligence, because the only evidence he has is some forged documents he discovered, and yet, the British have said emphatically that their intelligence was not based on those forged documents. So Joe Wilson and the other Bush critics are themselves lying when they claim Bush lied about the uranium in Africa.

(The Administration has admitted that it was a mistake to include the uranium in Africa statement in the state-of-the-union address. But no one has proved that the statement was a lie or even a deception.)

Each side tells whatever lies it can get away with. And the purpose of telling the lies is to win over public support for their respective side of the argument -- either to promote the war or to oppose it.

The Bush Administration is lying . . .

when they say the U.S. military presence in Iraq is only temporary, until the Iraqi army and police can take over.

Those bases are permanent and they know it. Anyone who follows the news at all and has any common sense knows those are permanent bases we are building. Anyone knowledgeable who says otherwise is lying.

Neocon Frank Gaffney was asked about the permanent military bases in Iraq, and his answer was: "There's no such thing as permanent military bases."

For all practical purposes, that is a blunt admission that those bases are permanent. When a public figure and propagandist resorts to sophistry (and it is sophistry to say no military bases are "permanent"), it is a dead giveaway that he is lying, or rather, trying to obfuscate the truth, playing word games in order to convey a false impression.

"SPINNING", as Bill O'Reilly would say.

How long is "permanent"? a hundred years? a thousand years?

Even the earth, this planet, is not permanent. The solar system. This galaxy. It's all "temporary" because eventually it will all go the way of the dinosaur.

So, what is the purpose of those permanent military bases?

Obviously the U.S. is trying to establish a foothold in the Middle East in order to be better able to control the region, in case anything unstable happens down the line, such as another invasion of one oil country into a neighboring oil country or the toppling of a regime and its replacement by a tyrant or another Taliban-type regime.

The U.S. doesn't want to control the lives of average middle-easterners. No one wants to dictate a new culture to them or force a new religion onto them (though some Christians may want to do some proselytizing). The U.S. really poses no threat to Muslims in the Middle East, as long as they recognize our right to that oil ("our oil") which happens to be in their ground, and on terms suitable to us.

The U.S. "demands" are not really unreasonable. We recognize the obligation to pay the inhabitants of the land a price for the oil. We aren't just going to "steal" it away from them and give them nothing in return. It's just a matter of settling on the terms. Even should the U.S. dictate the terms without any input at all from the Iraqi people, it will still recognize an obligation to pay some price.

When all the dust has settled, the Iraqi people will be better off, as far as the oil is concerned, than they were under Saddam Hussein. The only reason they're worse off right now is that the insurgents are inflicting so much damage onto the country and the infrastructure and oil facilities. Without the insurgency as a factor, there is little doubt that the average Iraqi would have a better deal than under Saddam Hussein, regarding the benefits from the oil.

And the establishment of a democratically-elected government is probably the most reasonable way to create the proper relation of the U.S. to the local inhabitants, in terms of the distribution of the oil proceeds and management of the assets and resources.

So, why are the Islamic fanatics making such a fuss? Why don't they just be reasonable, let the U.S. have its military presence, participate in the new democratic process, and voice their sentiments in a peaceful fashion, exercising their rights to free speech and free press and so on?

Why don't they accept this U.S. "imperialism", which is obviously a good form rather than an evil form of "imperialism"? Because they plain hate any foreign "occupation" no matter how benevolent, and they are guided by a primitive us-vs.-them psychology, which is normal. (Also, that harsh desert and steppe climate and relentless blazing sun might be doing some damage to their brains. Don't laugh -- climate and geography also play a role in shaping culture and mindset.)

Profiteering? Yes, that's also a purpose served by this war.

Yes, some U.S. companies are profiteering from the Iraq adventure, and this is also a reason or cause for this war. Most of this cannot be defended as a sufficient cause or just cause for the war. It can only be accepted as a normal byproduct of the war, just as profiteering is a byproduct of any war, including WW2.

Of course there are always companies that profit from any war, such as defense contractors. But that doesn't make the war unjust.

Anything the government does will profit someone. Even environmental legislation benefits certain companies who profit because of the services they provide. And those companies have their lobbyists in Washington just as surely as do the defense contractors, claiming it's for the "good of the country" when it's really their bank accounts they care most about.

But there is another argument for war (or this current war) which involves profiteering and is a just-cause argument. But this argument is never made by those who favor a war, because it is politically incorrect to ever admit this as one of the reasons for war:

The U.S. needs an occasional war to keep its military forces totally up to snuff!

It's a fact, like it or not. The U.S. is the world's only superpower, and in order to ensure that its military forces are in the best possible shape to meet future needs, it must put them to use, in real battlefield environments, on a regular basis, to prevent them from becoming obsolete and from deteriorating.

You may scorn this argument, and go into a rage. But facts are facts. An unused military becomes rusty and less efficient. One of the deteriorating factors in the decline of the Roman Empire was the weakening of its armies due to long periods of non-use. They tried putting some of the armies to work in building projects, to keep them out of mischief, but this was not the best way to keep them busy.

Troops must be put into battle in order to refine them and make them be the most efficient they can be at their job, which is to kill. And weapons must be put to use, to ensure that they function at the proper time. Especially new weapons which need to be tested and improved upon to maximize their performance.

Even the weapons industry per se needs occasional pumping up to keep it at maximum efficiency and up-to-date with the latest technology.

Laugh and scorn all you will -- It is the truth that the world's only superpower will maintain maximum military efficiency by starting up a new war every few years -- perhaps every 10 or 15 years -- in order to give its military the training and experience it needs to become the finest fighting force possible. And why should it settle for any less?

One way or another, those forces must be put into real battle experiences in order to be maintained at their optimum performance level. And in the final analysis, performance is what counts, not symbols, not Kumbayah, not touchy-feely sentimentalism and emotionalism.

Neither side is right or wrong.

It is a judgment call whether this imperialism is a good thing in the long run. Since every great nation so far was also imperialist, it appears that perhaps imperialism is part of what is necessary to become a great nation, and that to abandon imperialist behavior and be a non-interventionist country will end up making this country, as well as the rest of the world, worse off rather than better off.

And yet, it may also be argued that imperialism is only a byproduct of greatness, and that the great achievements in industry and science and literature and the arts are all possible without also building up a great war machine to send around the world to make everyone better off and impose democracy onto them for their own good.

The cliché that U.S. forces may be sent into battle only to protect "vital U.S. interests" and never for altruistic reasons is a quaint and naive dogma which will never die, but every realist knows that when the world's superpower wants to perform an altruistic act and there is some special interest in the U.S., however narrow, who stands to gain, the country will rally to the cause, because any great nation has grandiose visions of saving the world or rescuing the oppressed, and the nation's ego is inflated by undertaking such adventures. And further, there is no logical reason to suppress such visions and urges to heroism, even though in some rare cases these instincts probably do more harm than good and make the world worse off overall.

If you disagree with the above, what do you say to the 50 million S. Koreans now living in freedom? Do you condemn President Clinton who dedicated the Korean War Memorial, which has the inscription: "Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met"? Why honor them if they were poking their noses into someone else's business? interfering where they had no right to be? and yes, killing not a few innocent civilians in the act of pursuing the higher cause?

If this country's military has no business pursuing altruistic goals, then that war memorial should be torn down and those soldiers and their commanders scorned for wasting their lives in an unjust cause.

No, a great nation does sometimes sacrifice its own immediate interests in order to save others. It chooses when and where to do this, but it is driven to perform altruistic acts beyond its own "vital interests", even sometimes at a high price. There is an intangible something that makes it worth it.

But it cannot be proven to those who insist that only the nation's own direct "vital interests" are important to fight for.

So neither side is right or wrong. No one really knows the truth about whether imperialism is a necessary ingredient to achieve greatness or is only an incidental byproduct which could be dispensed with without any loss.

Those who are certain that U.S. imperialism is inherently wrong, even when it produces good results such as in Korea, should wish for U.S. failure in Iraq and even hope that greater losses are suffered, in order to teach the U.S. a lesson, as punishment for its unjust war and aggression against other countries. After all, when a country chooses an evil course, shouldn't it be punished?

Thus, those who say they support the troops but oppose the war as immoral are also lying. What they want is for more U.S. troops to be killed and maimed, in order to inflict more punishment onto their country which has chosen an evil course, as a disincentive to doing future evil.

Just as parents punish their child for doing wrong, for the child's own good, so also should citizens desire punishment for their country when it does evil, because only in this way can it be deterred from committing similar evil in the future.

So again, the opponents of the war are lying just as much as the proponents are. Both sides want what is best for their country in the long run, and both believe they must lie in order to steer their country in the right direction. And of course both sides deny that they lie, because if they admit they're lying, then their lying won't do the good it accomplishes for their just cause. And if your cause is just, you do anything, even lie, to promote it.

This is what is really happening with the current war in Iraq.

---

If you disagree with any of the above, click here to give your comments and have them posted in this page.

---

---

---

---

---