The generation that only talks the talks but doesn't go vote (and/or those that vote for politicans that'll rape & pillage their own voters) nor pay attention to realpolitik is asking to be cancelled anyway.

#7. You think like a socialist. You know how you like to call yourself a dialectical materialist who ascribes to a realpolitik understanding of history as shaped by conflict over material needs? It turns out that this American pastime was actually not first invented by Edison flying a kite over the Potomac, but was originally invented by German socialists!

... and that fucker is still revered as an elder statesman over here as well. That's the depressing nature of realpolitik.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'strategy, power, abuse, realpolitik, madman theory, cambodia, vietnam' to 'strategy, power, abuse, realpolitik, madman theory, cambodia, vietnam, chile' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'strategy, power, abuse, realpolitik' to 'strategy, power, abuse, realpolitik, madman theory, cambodia, vietnam' - edited by RedSky

Tags for this video have been changed from 'strategy, power, abuse, realpoltik' to 'strategy, power, abuse, realpolitik' - edited by calvados

wow. This guy is great. it seems realpolitik has a human side. I couldn't have thought it possible.

You'd think these leftists could at least get a dose of realpolitik.

Instead it's all pie in the sky.

The Palestinians stated purpose is the destruction of Israel. How do you appease that?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Classic rewriting of history. No mention of the fact that the US did everything in it's power to win the war that was lost years ago. You know the endless bombing campaigns that wanted to simply bludegeon the populace into submission.

No mention of the fact that those bombings went into crossing borders into Cambodia and allowed the Khmer Rouge to come into power. Which is why Vietnam invaded.

No mention of the fact that Kissinger held back from bringing a peace to gain political power in his realpolitik doctrine.

No mention of the fact that General Westmoreland was allowed full control of the situation to 'win' Vietnam.

But that's okay, America had to be bomb Vietnam to free it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

QM has a bit of a point about the selective outrage. There are many countries that do - and have done - much worse. So why does the US get singled out for its failings abroad?

It's the fucking hypocrisy.

The US sets itself up as the last bastion of freedom and all that is right with the world. "They hate us for our freedom" wails Bush - without any thought to 30 years of destructive, brutal, CIA enforced realpolitik in the Middle East.

The US could use some good old fashioned self-loathing. Maybe Germany could give lessons.

The US is a good country. I'm glad I'm a citizen. It's not God's gift to the world - formed to bring democracy to the earth. Manifest destiny was not responsible for taking California from the Mexicans.

If we could get rid of this purple mountain's majesty of self-rightous, pious hubris - the world would be a better place.

I say Saddam is not a terrorist because that was the narrative created for you by the Bush Administration, until that time no one referred to sovereign government heads as terrorists, it was all about framing the issue to justify a war. Saddam gas and suppressed his own people before the Iraq invasion of 2003, before even the Gulf War. Power politics justified his oppression of civilians, the US supported that there was no action, the Iran-Iraq war falls under the same definition, again many western nations profited from arms sales to both.

Furthermore as Reagen said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or rather "The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is your point of view."

The US defines what and who is a terrorist pretty freely, your example of Saddam killing civilians flies in the face of the fact that most of the arms for that endeavor was supplied by the US government. The US also supported and enabled coups in Iran (Shah), Chile (Pinochet), East Timor and countless other states that went on to falling in the same definition of terrorism that you apply. However they weren't labeled as such.

The Isreal/Palestine issue is the biggest example where the excuse of terrorism, has been applied to justify encroachments on Palestinian lands, criticism of which makes you somehow antisemitic. Who is the terrorist in this case? The Palestinians who are forced to use guerrilla tactics or the modernize Israel army with its tanks, jets and rifles?

This is realpolitik of the world.

Terrorism -- use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy

Power politics -- international political relations in which each nation attempts to increase its own power or interests by using military or economic coercion

Realpolitik -- practical politics; a euphemism for power politics

Frequently, realpolitik = power politics = terrorism

http://www.twf.org/Library/Terrorism.html

Regarding the couple of comments about whether the war in Iraq was about oil. 9/11 gave exactly what the PNAC report was looking for (and spelled out in their report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”) to mobilize public outrage and direct it towards a military invasion of the Middle East. “Crossing the Rubicon” is an investigation that creates a nice picture for the motives of certain people to be involved in 9/11. But aside from those questions, there is one question that many people think they already know the answer to:

Is the Iraq war is a failure?

Whether something is a failure or a success depends on your goals.

If the goal was to bring democracy to a random nation (i.e. nothing to do with reasons given for the war) in the Middle East, then Iraq is a disaster. Just like Cheney told the press it would be when discussing why the previous President Bush's (Bush I, for skimmers) administration didn't overthrown Saddam the first time. So what changed for Cheney between that time and when the current President Bush (Bush II) invaded Iraq? Some hidden knowledge about a region that has been unstable for a thousand plus years? Or perhaps different goals?

Now if the goal was oil-centric, then Iraq is easily a success. Under the draft that the US gave Iraq for its constitution, the Iraq National Oil Company would control 17 of the 80 current oil fields. Foreign corporations would control the other 63 oil fields AND any future finds for the next 30 years. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

Here's a quote from Jim Holt's book, "It's the Oil, Stupid."

**** BEGIN QUOTE ****
The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards 'nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades - a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics - dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final 'surge' that has hastened internal migration - could scarcely have been more effective. The costs - a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) - are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco, it is a resounding success.
**** END QUOTE ****


Also are two videos to add a counterpoint about WTC7 for this sift (please read post below also):
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201611/9/11-WTC7
http://www.stage6.com/LoneWolf/video/2201336/9/11-Official-Pancake-Theory-Debunked

ok, bamdrew, though i won't say fair enough...

the daily show really shouldn't have it both ways - it's either a comedy show or it's a news program -- jon stewart on crossfire intimated that the show shouldn't be taken seriously because they followed a program where puppets make crank phone calls

if this is the source of other people's beliefs or 'what they've absorbed' then i can only shake my head - too many people are not sufficiently circumspect of what they accept as a source for their understandings

so, with no idea of why, what, or from where they draw their beliefs...

yes, i'll try to help in providing what they apparently can't or don't want to find

osama / taliban:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

as to saddam, well, your contention and mine aren't specifically at cross purposes...

the tds clip appears to claim that our military sales to saddam made him too powerful to easily remove in any subsequent regime change

to this you bring up rumsfeld and intel - both of which, i'll wager, did very little to strengthen saddam vis a vis the tds claim -- the military sales / aid i already clarified in my first post here

only the most obtuse of revisionists will fail to remember the context of realpolitik of the early '80s -- the ayatollah's islamic revolution having just seized control of iran--as well as their taking and holding us hostages for 444 days (and finally releasing them just two years before the rumsfeld photo), and providing hezbollah support with which they kidnapped more americans in lebanon--meant that the us was pleased to have a secular foil on the arab street

you may find it interesting that, in speaking of the infamous photo op of saddam and rumsfeld shaking hands, for every such photo, i can provide you with at least five of jacques chirac and saddam

"realpolitik is all shades of gray. "

Not really. Unless you mean that morality plays very little role but that doesn't seem to be what your suggesting. Realpolitik is the notion that states have interests and it is the job of statesmen to advance the interests of the state however possible. States that oppose your state's interests are an adversary, those that help to further your interests are an ally. Thus, realpolitik is very much a black and white affair.

What's disturbing is the black and white ("them") thinking.. politics, international relations, realpolitik is all shades of gray. Not the "with us or against us" of dubya's cowboy persona. Being ignorant and arrogant is a good way to make enemies.