Robert Cusma
Recent Activity
Robert Cusma commented on What is the best way forward in Iraq? on May 30, 2008, 2:31 AM
I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha.To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what's popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels's)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky's model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil.To chebyshev153, when you imply that this "democracy" is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi's still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn't commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there's no real idea of what the Iraqi's opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
Robert Cusma commented on How will the changing global powers impact the Israel-Palestine conflict? on May 29, 2008, 10:55 PM
@ zachar and redward... If you do a quick information check concerning the talks of a two-state solution, there have been numerous cases where the Arabs have been in favor of a two state compromise, but such hopes for settlement on the issues have been pretty much been ignored. Israel continues on the slippery slope by continuing their policy of disregarding the opinion of the these people, and continuing to militarize and "annex" the regions contested. And as for the beliefs of the "radical terrorist" group Hamas, although they would not agree, they are not necessarily distributing the voices of the Arab and Palestinian majority. Much like surrounding government's they are trying to establish and enact their ideals through force and aggression. But, the foundation of these radical ideals should not be ignored, since certain levels of legitimacy can be found in their cries. I think that this legitimacy can be observed and accepted if one reads about the history of the Palestinians & Arabs, and understand why the majority feel the way they do concerning the existence of the Israeli state.
Robert Cusma commented on What is the best way forward in Iraq? on May 29, 2008, 10:31 PM
I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha. To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what's popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels's)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky's model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil. To chebyshev153, when you imply that this "democracy" is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi's still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn't commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there's no real idea of what the Iraqi's opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
Robert Cusma commented on How will the changing global powers impact the Israel-Palestine conflict? on May 30, 2008, 2:55 AM
@ zachar and redward...If you do a quick information check concerning the talks of a two-state solution, there have been numerous cases where the Arabs have been in favor of a two state compromise, but such hopes for settlement on the issues have been pretty much been ignored. Israel continues on the slippery slope by continuing their policy of disregarding the opinion of the these people, and continuing to militarize and "annex" the regions contested. And as for the beliefs of the "radical terrorist" group Hamas, although they would not agree, they are not necessarily distributing the voices of the Arab and Palestinian majority. Much like surrounding government's they are trying to establish and enact their ideals through force and aggression. But, the foundation of these radical ideals should not be ignored, since certain levels of legitimacy can be found in their cries. I think that this legitimacy can be observed and accepted if one reads about the history of the Palestinians & Arabs, and understand why the majority feel the way they do concerning the existence of the Israeli state.