SANTAYANA GOODBYE!
Georges Santayana said, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
Karl Marx added a gloss on this statement when he said, "History Repeats Itself, the First Time as Tragedy, the Second Time as Farce."
Both statements recognize the obvious: we don't learn from our mistakes. From 1981-1989, Iraq was engaged in an 8-year war with its neighbor Iran, ran by the Ayatollah "Rock and Rollah" Khomeini, whose ascendancy to power came about when Shah Reza Pahlevi was deposed (the triggering event for the deposal was President Carter's stupid decision to allow the Shah to come to the United States - to New York - for cancer treatment. This decision, which was viewed by those Iranians who loathed the Shah - i.e. many people - as an unnecessary act of kindness, to say the least, lead to te siege of the U.S. embassy in Iran, in which hostages remained for over a year. These hostages were finally released, in large part, when President Carter lifted the freeze on Iranian assets, but everyone still believes Ronald Reagan was unilaterally responsible for the hostages' release, just as everyone believes he was unilaterally responsible for ending the Cold War. The former belief is understandable. After all, the hostages were released within moments of his January 20, 1981 inauguration. He did play some part in the securing of their release - either because the Ayatollah thought Reagan was an even bigger nut job than he was, and if the hostages weren't released, Reagan would give him the mad clown treatment, or because of some kind of secret deal Reagan made to secure the hostages' release. Secret deal? Reagan the Great? Whether there was such a deal remains one of the most actively pursued "unsolved state secret mysteries" of our time. No secret deal was found to have been made, the, ahem, Reagan Justice Department concluded. Five years later, a plot was revealed wherein the U.S. sold arms to Iran (a violation of U.S. and international law). The sales were made in an effort to secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. The money from the sales was diverted to conservative "freedom-fighters" in Nicaragua who opposed the socialist Sandanista government. These freedom fighters were called the "contras," from the Spanish word "contra," meaning against. Congress expressly forbade monetary aid to these people).
Anyhow, I digress, sort of. FORMALLY, we were on the side of Iraq during this eight-year war (although as noted above, puppetry has sub-deceptions), meaning we supplied Iraq, meaning Saddam Hussein, who had already perfected the art of gassing Kurds, running mass torture chambers, and filling mass graves, with arms and money. The war ended in a stalemate.
History accomplished. We then (not many people know this) all but begged Saddam in the next two years to invade Kuwait (telling him that doing so would be a way of "demarcating his legitimate borders"), and then, we invaded Iraq when it did so (curiously, Saddam was not removed, we did not occupy his country, but we made a nice profit out of the process, as did he, eventually, through the oil-for-food program. The tragedy: many Iraqis died through the imposition of harsh U.N. sanctions).
Need I explain what the farce is?
Karl Marx added a gloss on this statement when he said, "History Repeats Itself, the First Time as Tragedy, the Second Time as Farce."
Both statements recognize the obvious: we don't learn from our mistakes. From 1981-1989, Iraq was engaged in an 8-year war with its neighbor Iran, ran by the Ayatollah "Rock and Rollah" Khomeini, whose ascendancy to power came about when Shah Reza Pahlevi was deposed (the triggering event for the deposal was President Carter's stupid decision to allow the Shah to come to the United States - to New York - for cancer treatment. This decision, which was viewed by those Iranians who loathed the Shah - i.e. many people - as an unnecessary act of kindness, to say the least, lead to te siege of the U.S. embassy in Iran, in which hostages remained for over a year. These hostages were finally released, in large part, when President Carter lifted the freeze on Iranian assets, but everyone still believes Ronald Reagan was unilaterally responsible for the hostages' release, just as everyone believes he was unilaterally responsible for ending the Cold War. The former belief is understandable. After all, the hostages were released within moments of his January 20, 1981 inauguration. He did play some part in the securing of their release - either because the Ayatollah thought Reagan was an even bigger nut job than he was, and if the hostages weren't released, Reagan would give him the mad clown treatment, or because of some kind of secret deal Reagan made to secure the hostages' release. Secret deal? Reagan the Great? Whether there was such a deal remains one of the most actively pursued "unsolved state secret mysteries" of our time. No secret deal was found to have been made, the, ahem, Reagan Justice Department concluded. Five years later, a plot was revealed wherein the U.S. sold arms to Iran (a violation of U.S. and international law). The sales were made in an effort to secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. The money from the sales was diverted to conservative "freedom-fighters" in Nicaragua who opposed the socialist Sandanista government. These freedom fighters were called the "contras," from the Spanish word "contra," meaning against. Congress expressly forbade monetary aid to these people).
Anyhow, I digress, sort of. FORMALLY, we were on the side of Iraq during this eight-year war (although as noted above, puppetry has sub-deceptions), meaning we supplied Iraq, meaning Saddam Hussein, who had already perfected the art of gassing Kurds, running mass torture chambers, and filling mass graves, with arms and money. The war ended in a stalemate.
History accomplished. We then (not many people know this) all but begged Saddam in the next two years to invade Kuwait (telling him that doing so would be a way of "demarcating his legitimate borders"), and then, we invaded Iraq when it did so (curiously, Saddam was not removed, we did not occupy his country, but we made a nice profit out of the process, as did he, eventually, through the oil-for-food program. The tragedy: many Iraqis died through the imposition of harsh U.N. sanctions).
Need I explain what the farce is?
posted by EnterCenter at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home