Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Let's Use Our Best Weapon Against Iran:

Posted by Cenk Uygur at 12:37 PM on December 20, 2006.


Cenk Uygur: Capitalism

Why do we never learn? Why can't we learn anything from our experience in Vietnam? In Vietnam, we saw what we did wrong, but even more importantly, what we did right.

It turns out invading a country that isn't a real military threat to you and trying to suppress a hostile local insurgency is not the right way to go. Who could have seen that coming? Color me surprised.

But ultimately, we're winning in Vietnam. President Bush was in Vietnam recently talking about how much progress they're making. Not the kind of progress we're making in Iraq, real progress.

Why is Vietnam friendlier to us now? Why are they not a threat to their neighbors or to world peace? Why are they a trading partner? One word...

... capitalism.

Coke, McDonald's and Levi's have done more to convert Vietnam to our way of thinking than any of our bombs ever did. The Vietnamese would have resisted us for the next one hundred years if we kept up our military assault. But they were no match for Burger King.

Freedom and capitalism have wonderfully corrosive effects. Once they get in your bloodstream, you can't get them out. We should let them do our dirty work for us.

The model we have used with China is far more effective than the model we used with Iraq. In China, we engaged them, opened them up for business - and now they're screwed. Who thinks China is still communist? They pretend they are, but in fact, they are now the largest capitalist country in the world.

With economic freedom, eventually comes political freedom. This has not come to fruition in China and Vietnam yet, but it is on the way. It's an unstoppable freight train. Once people taste freedom - as Pepsi would say - they gotta have it!

Perhaps even more important than political freedom is world stability. It isn't that democracies don't start wars -- as George Bush claims -- after all, we started one with Iraq for no apparent reason. It's that capitalist countries don't go to war with one another. Why? Because it's bad for business. Slows down trade.

Once you shift power down from monarchs or dictators who can gain power by more land acquisition down to business owners who lose power by disrupting business with trading partners, war becomes less likely. I am sure there are exceptions to this rule because of old ethnic hatreds and other unstoppable forces, but over all, the rule stands.

What would China or Vietnam gain by attacking someone else now? Not much. What would they lose in business opportunities? A lot. Capitalism works.

So, now we are faced with a decision in Iran. Do we go with the military approach, which Dick Cheney and his neo-clown buddies can't wait to implement? Or do we go with the wiser course of beating them with capitalism?

We have never lost a war of ideas. When the United States set up the United Nations there were only 15 democracies in the world. There are now over 100. We thought we could work with the world in building democracies throughout the globe. We were right.

After World War II, our allies wanted to punish our defeated enemies. We had the revolutionary idea of building them back up so that they would be our allies. We were right.

The Soviet Union thought they had a better political system than us. They thought communism would take over the world and vanquish capitalism. They were wrong. We were right.

I am not saying military campaigns never work. There is, unfortunately, a time for war. But this is not it. We see the disastrous consequences of going to war when you don't have to. And luckily, there is a better way. Let our ideas win.

Ahmedinejad's party just got trounced in local elections in Iran. He was booed at a speech last week inside his own country. Over 50% of Iran is under the age of 25. They want freedom. They want french fries and Coca Cola. They want nice American jeans and the internet. They want to see Paris Hilton and Britney Spears party together. Let them have it.

If you bomb them, they will have to fight. They will revert to nationalism and be forced to support their fundamentalist leaders. If you engage them, their leadership has no chance in the long run. None. They will be wiped off the face of the earth. Without a single bullet fired.

Our ideas are the most powerful weapons we have. They work. We just have to give them a chance to work. Inject any country with free trade, economic freedom and capitalism. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Please, for once, let's learn from what we have done wrong and what we have done right in the past. Let's find a new way forward with Iran. Instead of using our bombs, let's use our brains for a change.

Digg!

Cenk Uygur hosts the Young Turks.


GOP Internal Memo: "No Republican Seat is Safe"
Leaked memo shows self-doubt in the Republican Party.
June 30, 2008.
John McCain Meets With Gay Republicans (In Secret, of Course)
"Secretly I don't hate you as much as I tell the evangelicals I hate you, but I still kinda hate you. Is that ok?"
June 27, 2008.
Senator Russ Feingold on the New FISA Bill
"The most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006 other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War."
June 26, 2008.
Imus Defends Comments About "Pacman" Jones
Imus is saying that he was misunderstood. Are we buying it?
June 25, 2008.
Linguist and Political Powerhouse George Lakoff Talks About His Newest Book
George Lakoff on The Young Turks.
June 23, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Western Capitalism--the Good, Bad and Ugly
Posted by: asilsfable on Dec 20, 2006 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't tell you how depressing it is to fly for over 15 hours to another part of the globe and see the same thing you'd see in a mall in the San Fernando Valley when you get off the plane. Difference is interesting; globalization is the opiate of the people.

That said, I couldn't agree more with your assertion that capitalism is the biggest weapon in our arsenal. It subverts almost every culture it comes into contact with, for better and/or worse. The biggest effect is its ability to create a relational context similar in process to an urban ethic; cool folks wear this, drink that, watch here. A para-global culture, if you will.

The younger the populace, the more this seems to work. Given that the middle east and Asia have at least 50% of their population under the age of 30, the effect is completely transforming. Speedy, too, I might add.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Puh-leeze! Posted by: hbw
» RE: Oh Puh-leeze! Posted by: oregoncharles
beaniecounter
Posted by: beaniecounter on Dec 20, 2006 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting concept; certainly with merit. I would like to ask a question, though. How well has capitalism worked for us in Mexico?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: beaniecounter Posted by: tuxperger
» RE: beaniecounter Posted by: Graeme
Excellent article.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 20, 2006 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom and capitalism have wonderfully corrosive effects. Once they get in your bloodstream, you can't get them out. We should let them do our dirty work for us.

Particularly liked that ^ one. Without a doubt, we should rely on our market influence more, and our military less for addressing ideological belligerents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a couple of points
Posted by: moody_judy on Dec 20, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) In the aftermath of WW2, former adversaries were rebuilt
(Marshall Plan) in contemplation of a conflict with former
ally the (then) Soviet Union. Communism lost and
Capitalism won? Read any of the reports from Moscow
lately Cenk? How's that new quasi capitalist economy doing?
Just humming along,right? Oh and by the way the capitalist
(winning economy) USA is now TRILLIONS in debt to Red
China and other Pacific Rim countries.
Nations with capitalist economies don't fight one another?
Nations that had absolutely power grubbing imperialistic
agendas with private property ownership and powerful
business/merchant sectors have fought one bloody war
after another for thousands of years.!!!
WTF do you think WW2 was about in the Pacific?
I'll give you a hint: it's a black liquid. The planned Greater
East Asia Coprosperity sphere required it to run on under
the direction of an industrialized Japan.
2) You are going to base a policy on the hoped for desirability of fries,some blond Internet sluts and Walmart?
Puhleeze....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting ideas
Posted by: Techubus on Dec 20, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reservations about spreading capitalism abroad aside, I agree it is far better approach then military solutions.

I'm curious as to how this line of thinking works when applied to South America. In that region we have the unfortunate circumstance of leveraging capitalism and free trade alongside military force.

The result has been a backlash against American capitalism and a push towards leftism/socialism. Is it the fault of the military factor or is it the fault of the inherent unfairness of free trade policies in poor countries?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zionists Lay the Groundwork for a Military Strike Against Iran by Kim Petersen
Posted by: rwa on Dec 20, 2006 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Jewish leaders” have latched onto the wiry figure of beleaguered Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the latest straw man for the crimes of zionism. Meeting in New York, "Jewish leaders" declared their intention to bring Ahmadinejad to trial for inciting genocide. [1]

The case against Ahmadinejad is based upon the regurgitated canard that he had called for "wiping Israel off the map." [2] Second, is the absurd complaint that Ahmadinejad is a holocaust-denier, as if denying or questioning history should be a crime. [3] The forced acceptance of an "official" history of the World War II Holocaust is paradigmatically similar to the compelling of Winston Smith (in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four) to believe that "2+2=5." Third, is Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capacity. So far, Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology has been within the parameters of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [4] Israel, however, arrogantly grants itself the right to actions and attempts to deny the same right to others. Logically, if Iran is guilty of inciting genocide for pursuing nuclear and ballistic missile technology, then Israel must be guilty of the same, or worse, since it has already attained both nuclear and ballistic missile technology.

Besides, even if Iran were inciting genocide, and as wicked as this would be, it pales in comparison to the malevolence of the actual perpetration of genocide, of which the Israeli regime is guilty among other crimes. [5]

But these are not stupid "Jewish leaders," so a question arises: what do these leaders really intend to accomplish with their fraud? JTA News makes this clear: the "Jewish leaders" seek "to lay the groundwork for a military strike if diplomacy [sic] and legal action don't derail Iran's quest for nuclear weapons."
Full article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec06/Petersen19.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peace at last
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 20, 2006 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is about the most right-wing and stupidest article that ever appeared on AlterNet. What happens when our corporate saviors try for two cars in every Chinese garage? The aim of the Capitalist society is to stamp out the middle-class. Wealth is always relative. To enjoy wealth you need the poor to do the work. The Capitalist ideal is the wealthy in every country trading the goods of their serfs. If any liberal buys this crap. Shame on you. You're too friggin stupid to come in out of the rain.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peace at last Posted by: rwa
» RE: Peace at last Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Peace at last Posted by: Graeme
It's not capitalism as such...
Posted by: tuxperger on Dec 20, 2006 10:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's the good life that keeps people out of trouble and away from starting wars.

It's also not democracy as such.

It's having something to live for and nothing to die for. The Good Society. Neither capitalism nor (formal) democracy alone guarantee that.

Sweden used to be one of the leading imperial, protestant crusading powers in Europe. The Americans in Iraq could have learned a thing or two from the Swedes in Germany, around 1630 ;-/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does America have to dominate the world?
Posted by: techphile on Dec 21, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So instead of letting people in other countries find their own way towards happines you want them all to become like the US.
And when Iran becomes "capitalist" as you say who will you see as the next bogey man? Will it be Russia or France

You talk about how much you love democracy when people vote for the candidates that you love but when they prefer Hamas or Hezbollah then you would try and do whatever you can to destroy them. After all the CIA has mastered the art of orchestrating "democratic" elections.

What about people like Allende, Mossadegh, and Lamumba who were democratically elected but did not want their people ripped off.

Then there is so much American exceptionalism in this article
you can see it in the writer's implication that the US inveted democracy. For a change why doesn't the American govt try and live by the golden rule instead of the fake capitalist rule while shouting to everyone else do as i say not as i do

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 21, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest problem with this post is that Iraq, being an oil state, was doing quite well economically before it was invaded - at least, it was until S.H. started invading HIS neighbors. If we hadn't trashed the place, we would have little to offer that they hadn't already bought.

I keep wondering why the U$ chose to invade the most modernized, secular state in the Arab world (Turkey isn't Arab, and neither is Iran, aside from a minority). I wonder if that was precisely the reason: we couldn't allow that trend. To make matters worse, Iraq practiced a form of socialism. As Chavez is now demonstrating, that works quite well when you have almost infinite oil money to spend.

Uygur's basic point, that cultural proselytising is better than invasion by almost any standard, is well worth making. I just wish he hadn't mucked it up with all those factual blunders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalism? Posted by: Graeme
Pure nonsense . . .
Posted by: redstarwraith on Dec 21, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may well be that those countries that haven't yet made it to the capitalist stage of development will eventually embrace capitalism. . .but that isn't "the end of history"! Capitalism as such does nothing to maintain peace. . .Cenk is in fantasy land insisting that it does. We are the most powerful capitalist country in the world. Ask yourself: How much did war profiteering contribute to this status? How many corporations are profiting right this minute over our Iraq fiasco? The devil is in the detail people. I wonder what Cenk's view of capitalism spread globally will look like? Some kind international gangster association, each group with its own turf? Then what? Capitalism NEEDS ever expanding markets. What to do when the markets are glutted? Ever been to Detroit and seen the results of overproduction: layoffs, parking lots full of "product" that can't be moved - and all for what? The fucking profit motive! There IS no other way for the nations of this world to exist except for planned economies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pure nonsense . . . Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Pure nonsense . . . Posted by: Graeme
Koondog
Posted by: Koondog on Dec 21, 2006 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the amount of the national treasury we have pissed away into the sands of Iraq we could have given, gratis, about $20,000 or more to every man, woman and child in Iraq. Figure it out. Umpty-ump billion dollars divided by 25 million Iraqis equals how many Maytag washers, plasma TVs, iPods, aluminum siding and Britney Spears CDs, not to mention Levis, Big Macs and Air Jordans we could have simply given to every Iraqi family, Shia, Sunni or Kurd?
Simply roll up the Wal-Mart trucks to evey household and let them take what they wanted. We literally could have done that without firing a single depleted uranium shell at anybody and Saddam wouldn't have had a thing to say about it. Especially, if we'd throw in an AK-47 for each head of household. And, oh, yeah, it would have been great for OUR economy. And we'd still have our prestige in the eyes of the world community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Koondog Posted by: HeroesAll
Successful?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 21, 2006 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a peculiar tendency to buy into the rhetoric of the Bush administration that is shown by the skeptics of that administration. 

Is the Iraq invasion and occupation really about bringing democracy or freedom to Iraq? To ask the question is to answer it. Of course not!

So what are the real objectives of this war and how successful has it been on those grounds? I can only guess what the real objectives were, but perhaps I can start a conversation on the topic.

I. The primary purpose of the Iraq war was to bring political advantage to the Bush Administration.Judged on this as a primary objective of the Iraq war, the war was initially quite successful though it has recently become a failure. Certainly the Bush re-election (or whatever it was) is due in large part to the country falling into line behind a wartime President.


II. Alternatively, if the primary purpose of the Iraq war was to transfer wealth from the U.S. treasury to favored large corporations, then the war has been and it continues to be wildly successful. There have been hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly much more, that have been paid to corporations like Haliburton and Bectel under no-bid contracts with little or no oversight. The public has no idea how much of this money has flowed out of the treasury with no return of services at all.

I am sure that other people can contribute additional theories about why we are in the Iraq mess (and I hope they will), but my main point is that we all know that the official theories are nonsense and that to talk as though they are reasonable or credible is an exercise in expanding on this nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess tCenk has never heard of the threat of a good example
Posted by: techphile on Dec 21, 2006 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that he neglects to mention is that it was when other nations tried to create economic systems that were not beholden to the US they simply got invaded or destabilized.

Also if the Vietnames had been left to their own devices their economy would have taken off much further. O a, just waitint to hear how he would feel when they outsource foe cheaper and better writers/pundits

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DON'T MIXUP ECONOMIC SYSTEMS WITH IMPERIALISM
Posted by: poppop_schell on Dec 26, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the USA today is using its military and economic power to try to gain hegomony over the world, especially as it realtes to ebnergy sources. BUT...when hasn't there been a period in history where someone(s) didn't want to rule the world?

It isn't free market capitalism that is the culprit: it is the hearts of men who seek power over others. That can happen in a Capitalist, Socialist and Communist country as especially evidenced in the 20th Century. When one places blame on the wrong cause, NO REMEDY of lasting value will occur. Just a change in the names of the players.

The closest the world has come to a trully peaceful government/economic system is that proposed IMPERFECTLY by the USA Constitution and by those foreign NONINTERVENTIONTS who first lead our country. IF one is intellectually honest, it is a FACT that no where in world history has an economic system of FREE MARKET, FREE TRADE (among the states) led to more prosperity and lifting up the poor and downtrodden than did the original approach of the USA.

Bottom line, it is the plutocrats of both the GOP and DP that rule America today which has twisted (for the worst) the great free market system created by the founding fathers of this nation. If we truly lived the founding principles of this Republic of Republics, we would see freedom spread by example NOT conquest militarily or economically.

Even that said and lived, there will be NO true peace until all are enlightened and live by the power of the Holy Spirit which teaches peace, goodwill and kindness towards all our brothers and sisters, no matter what race, ethnicity , or econoimic system.

Dr. Douglas W. Schell
Retired Professor of Business
Full-time Senio Missionary for the Mormon Church

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]