Razing Falluja

The aforementioned Professor Jensen also sent links to some good websites. One is a blog called Empire Notes, where I found this post on Falluja: Report from Fallujah -- Destroying a Town in Order to "Save" it.

And this from a post about Iraq reconstruction:

The strategy of the United States is made transparently obvious. First of all, the fanfare about the reconstruction money is largely done to make it appear generous while it sets about giving Iraq's oil money to U.S. corporations without even wanting anything in return. Second, when it finally turns over nominal control of Iraq's oil revenues to the new "sovereign" government, we find that is has no discretionary funds -- everything is committed. Third, the rest of the congressional allocation -- still unspent -- remains over the heads of any Iraqi government figures who want independence in fiscal policy. If they ever want those funds to be disbursed, then they have to go along with U.S. plans for the money.

And this from a post on the 4th of July, quoting Frederick Douglas:

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the every-day practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

On this day, when the eagle's wings are hopelessly stuck in the mire of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib, when American liberty was celebrated at Bush's speech by the removal of two people for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts (not even causing any disruption), those words are as relevant as they have ever been.

Indeed.

It's a good blog. Have a look: Empire Notes.

Another link Jensen offered: Nowar Collective which includes a link to a collection of three of his speeches: "Citizens of the Empire: Thoughts on Patriotism, Dissent and Hope" (pdf)

These, I think, are excellent, thoughtful speeches, and I encourage you to read them. Two of the very important questions he asks are in a speech responding to attacks on his arguments after 9/11:

Here I want to highlight the difference between the messages I received from people in the United States, which ran about 70-30 against my views, and the messages I received from abroad, which were overwhelmingly either supportive of my view or interested in a rational discussion of them. These are not adequate samples for making
definitive claims, but the difference hints at a simple fact: The things I said about U.S. history and politics that were so controversial in the United States are well understood in the rest of the world. We come back to the paradox: Why is it that people in the United States, with such expansive formal political freedoms, know less about their own history and politics than people abroad?

I could point Professor Jensen to any number of people in the United States who would say that foreigners simply hate us and attack us and have nothing good to say about us, and besides, they lie.

Why did so many Americans not only disagree with me, but become enraged with me? What is it about this political culture that leads people to see a different political analysis not as something to be argued with, but something to eliminate? Again, we are left to ponder how the freedoms enjoyed in our version of democracy have produced a culture that is so hostile to intellectual engagement and democratic participation.

And, that is a puzzler. My own tendency to an answer is that we have no choice if we want to continue to live the American lifestyle that we call "the dream". To hold to two positions - that we are good and moral, and that we earn our riches - we have to hide the truth from ourselves. And, our corporate masters consciously maintain the climate in which we can fool ourselves, because it is they who benefit the most from eliminating any discussion of the matter. What is good for the most people is not what is good for the corporation. Democracy is anathema to corporatism (fascism), and so the people must remain convinced of the righteousness of America, Inc. What would happen if people saw that their riches were secured by amoral means? What if they began to realize the lie that they have been living? That it's not an American dream, but an American illusion?

Thanks to Professor Jensen.