The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I agree, absolutely. And that makes me all the more worried. This guy truly believes in something, which, according to his opinion, is worth hundreds of thousands of human lives, and he simply doesn't have any clue about how to realize those goodies, other than going to a war and raze the territory. He gunuinely thought destruction of Fallujah was for the benefit of the people there.
Believing in goodies doesn't make anyone worthy of anything. You shouldn't give him any credit for that. He is not an idiot, he is just insane. I will become a patissier, God willing.
With the global American ideological offensive, the fundamental insight of Graham Greene's The Quiet American is more relevant than ever: We witness the resurgence of the figure of the "quiet American," a naive, benevolent agent who sincerely wants to bring democracy and Western freedom. It is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put it: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused." The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans. That is our true desire-all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our ideological dream. It's fitting that in February 2003 the right-wing journalist Stephen Schwartz used the phrase "capitalist revolution" to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution around the entire world. No wonder they moved from "containing" the enemy to a more aggressive stance. It is the United States that is now, as the defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive agent of a world revolution. When Bush said, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the almighty God's gift to every man and woman in the world," his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in the best totalitarian fashion, its very opposite. ... When Bush celebrated the explosive and irrepressible thirst for freedom as a "fire in the minds of men," the unintended irony was that he used a phrase from Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Dostoevsky used the phrase to describe the ruthless activity of radical anarchists who burned a village: "The fire is in the minds of men, not on the roofs of houses." Today, we already see-and smell-the smoke of this fire.
The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans. That is our true desire-all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our ideological dream. It's fitting that in February 2003 the right-wing journalist Stephen Schwartz used the phrase "capitalist revolution" to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution around the entire world. No wonder they moved from "containing" the enemy to a more aggressive stance.
It is the United States that is now, as the defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive agent of a world revolution. When Bush said, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the almighty God's gift to every man and woman in the world," his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in the best totalitarian fashion, its very opposite.
...
When Bush celebrated the explosive and irrepressible thirst for freedom as a "fire in the minds of men," the unintended irony was that he used a phrase from Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Dostoevsky used the phrase to describe the ruthless activity of radical anarchists who burned a village: "The fire is in the minds of men, not on the roofs of houses." Today, we already see-and smell-the smoke of this fire.
By the way, I am still not sure where that expression (cottonpicking minute) comes from. This is a fascinating language.
I also think Bush's influence is not confined within the Republicans. Trying to upstage Bush, the Democratic leadership openly call for "no option off the table for Iran" (Hillary 06) or "enough troops in Iraq" (Obama 04). I never thought I would hear a serious call for nuking somebody because the country is enriching uranium, or for sending troops (which don't exist) to pacify a foreign country (i.e. killing more).
I would submit these outrageous statements would not have been acceptable as a serious political speech, but for Bush. Maybe Bush is a true revolutionary. I will become a patissier, God willing.
by gmoke - Jun 19
by Oui - Jul 6 1 comment
by gmoke - Jun 24
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jul 7
by Oui - Jul 61 comment
by Oui - Jul 6
by Oui - Jul 5
by Oui - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 2
by Oui - Jul 26 comments
by Oui - Jul 16 comments
by Oui - Jun 301 comment
by Oui - Jun 303 comments
by Oui - Jun 295 comments
by Oui - Jun 29
by Oui - Jun 28
by Oui - Jun 281 comment
by Oui - Jun 27
by Oui - Jun 263 comments
by Oui - Jun 26
by Oui - Jun 256 comments