Sunday, July 29, 2007

Russia’s Gorbachev Says US is Sowing World Disorder

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused Bush of causing world disorder by attempting to build a new American empire, a plan which he says is destined to fail.

“The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?” Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.

“What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people.”

“When I look at today’s world I have a worrying feeling about the growth of world disorder,” he said.

“I don’t think the current president of the United States and his administration will be able to change the situation as it is developing now — it is very dangerous,” he said.

Gorbachev has hit the nail on the head. The people surrounding Bush, indeed the entire neo-con concept, is built on arrogance rather than intellect. Fat smucks like Dick Cheney and Richard Perle - aided by buffoons like Rumsfeld - thought they could build an American empire and even boasted about it on their infantile web sites promising to promote American values abroad and to act unilaterally:
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Now, with their country embroiled in an unwinnable war of choice in Iraq, most of them have scuttled under the bed claiming they would have "liberated" Iraq, but not in the way that the administration have done so. These supposed men of action and honour have succeeded in showing only that they don't have enough backbone to admit that they were flat wrong and they are now attempting to distance themselves from what they have done and push all the blame towards Bush:
"At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible," Perle told Vanity Fair magazine.
Of course this is Perle at his most disingenuous, after all there was a day when he delighted in the fact that Bush could be manipulated:
Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."
So it would be wrong to lay the entire blame for the debacle at Bush's door, though a fair chunk of it is deservedly on his doorstep. However, the entire neo-con reason for choosing Bush was that he was not very smart and, if Cheney chose himself as Vice President - which he duly did - then they would be able to manipulate Bush to carry out the insane plans they had always nurtured at the Project for a New American Century and other right wing nuthouses.

Now, six years into the plan, they have revealed only that their belief that they could bludgeon the world into an image to their liking is a deeply flawed one. And, as we now witness them scrambling around the Middle East attempting to bribe other countries into supporting their failed venture, it is becoming clear to one and all that these guys really don't know what they are doing.

Indeed, rather than build an empire, they will leave the US in eighteen months severely weaker than she was when they took office. Before Bush came to power there were many people who thought that the US could act wherever it chose militarily with impunity. After Bush has stumbled in Iraq of all bloody places - a country which had already been weakened to the point of collapse by twelve years of punitive sanctions - the gloss of American military supremacy has lost it's glitter.

Likewise, her greatest ally, Israel, has never looked weaker in the Middle East since losing a war with Hizbullah. And, again, Israel lost this war after Bush and Co. insisted that she go further and further into a war that appeared to have no purpose. It certainly had a war aim - the destruction of Hizbullah - that was appallingly far fetched. Quite how Israel would be able to destroy Hizbullah - who they had not managed to destroy during all the years that they had occupied that country - was a point which was never debated. Like so many neo-con policies, a wish is stated and they then all behave as if the very fact that they have stated their wish will bring it into existence.

Gorbachev again:

“It is a massive strategic mistake: no single centre can command the entire world, no one,” he said. “Current America has made so many mistakes.”

He said the U.S. administration was apparently unable to adapt to a swiftly changing world and had ignored — or was unable to see — the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China as economic heavyweights.

Bush and Co. will never see the world in those terms; indeed, they dismiss such thoughts as Kissinger diplomacy, preferring to still believe that raw power and threats will eventually get them what they want. It is to this end that they cannot bring themselves to admit that their foray into Iraq has been an unqualified disaster, for to admit that would be to admit that their whole concept for government has been a failure.

Click title for full article.

5 comments:

daveawayfromhome said...

Damn straight. I appreciate that Gorbechev has seen fit to separate the United States from its idiot leadership. Yes, we elected the idiot (maybe), but at least we can change our minds, something the leadership seems incapable of.

Kel said...

Exactly, Dave. When people talk of anti-Americanism, I think we actually mean anti-Republicanism. The world had no problem with the US when Clinton was in charge. It's Bush and Cheney's astonishing arrogance that has alienated huge swathes of the globe, not ordinary Americans.

Unknown said...

Nice post Kel. A bit shrill but you managed to hit all your bugaboos in a single post as well as pander to a former Soviet dictator. You managed to attack Bush, Cheney, Perle, Kristol, Rumsfeld, and the Israelis in one shot. Although by resorting to the basest of personal attacks (fat fucks? pathetic!) you have revealed what I have known all along is an irrational hatred. You are not someone who takes a stance to reasonably disagree with policy, rather a base hatred seems to drive your rhetoric, as these personal attacks show.

But still, despite ranting against all the usual suspects, you managed to leave global warming out of the post. I'm sure you could have squeezed it in if you really tried!

When people talk of anti-Americanism, I think we actually mean anti-Republicanism.

So anti-50%-of-the-country is okay. Sounds like a convenient excuse to make people feel better about themselves. If you're going to be anti-anything, at least be straight up about it and call it what it is.

The world had no problem with the US when Clinton was in charge.

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out in the past how this view is not correct and that in fact there were plenty of people who had problems with Clinton.

I appreciate that Gorbechev has seen fit to separate the United States from its idiot leadership.

Is the fact that this is a former Soviet dictator not lost on anyone?

Yes, we elected the idiot (maybe), but at least we can change our minds, something the leadership seems incapable of.

So then, what this gentleman is implying is that we shouldn't stick with what we believe is right, but rather what we do should depend on opinion polls. Brilliant.

Unknown said...

Only the diehards like yourself

This is the part of every reply of yours where you take the tactic of avoiding offering an argument of any substance by trying to discredit the individual you disagree with.

the true Republicans who insist on being called Independents

A true Republican is a registered to vote as a Republican (and thus able to vote in the Republican primary), and therefore by definition not an Independent. An Independent is one who is not affiliated with any particular political party, and is therefore ineligible to vote in any primary.

I think you may be confusing Republicans and Democrats with conservatives and liberals. There are liberals and conservatives among Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

How does it feel to be backing a campaign that even Richard Perle has given up on?

Back to avoiding the argument again by attempting to focus on me.

But then your mindset is revealed when you label Gorbachev as a "Soviet Dictator"

Are you implying that Gorbachev was not a Soviet dictator?

But you do. Says it all really.

And back to me. I'm pretty sure I've pointed you to the website on logical fallacies.

Kel said...

How does it feel to be backing a campaign that even Richard Perle has given up on?

Back to avoiding the argument again by attempting to focus on me.

You can't be serious? Read your entire first entry, the whole thing is a jab at me.

"Nice post Kel. A bit shrill but you managed to hit all your bugaboos in a single post as well as pander to a former Soviet dictator. You managed to attack Bush, Cheney, Perle, Kristol, Rumsfeld, and the Israelis in one shot."

You refer to the post as "ranting" and then get in that you are surprised that I didn't manage to squeeze in anything about global warming. And now you have the nerve to attack my response as being about you rather than the argument at hand? And what was the argument at hand pray tell? The majority of your comment was an attack on my "bugaboos", so I find it simply astonishing that you now object to any comment about your personal style as being somehow below the belt.

Oh, and as someone who doesn't even label himself a Conservative, I am genuinely interested in how it feels for you to be supporting a war and a President after even Richard Perle has given up the ghost.