[Peace-discuss] Hawaii to Iraq

[David Green]

My response, which I hope doesn't sound glib, is that
seeing the structural nature of American aggression
leads to a more realistic understanding of what will
be needed to end it, which is the overthrow of the
corporate-military-industrial complex as we know it,
and an end to all this "political science" nonsense
about "national interests" which leads only to the
pursuit of corporate interests disguised as
patriotism. I would prefer that we were "unrealistic"
in light of understanding the real situation, rather
than "realistic" in the illusory hope of tinkering
with a system whose essential nature is violent and
oppressive. If I knew anything about Cervantes, maybe
I would be able to make a reference as to what
"tilting at windmills" was really all about. I suspect
that it is more than just being foolish.

DG

--- "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> If what you two are saying is true - and I'm not
> disagreeing - then what 
> difference does it make whether or not we somehow
> succeed in impeaching 
> Bush?  What difference does it make how many
> Americans regard American 
> foreign policy (or domestic policy) as
> "fundamentally wrong and 
> immoral"?  The two of you (and Kinzer, if he was
> just a bit more aware of 
> the implications of his own data) would seem to be
> suggesting that American 
> policy has remained substantially the same
> (intentionally and fundamentally 
> wrong and immoral) for 100 years, irrespective of
> administration in power 
> and irrespective of public opinion.  So why should
> we bother with activism 
> at a national level at all?  Aren't we just tilting
> at windmills?  Pissing 
> in the wind?  Isn't the sole achievable purpose,
> really, to pull an 
> isolated body out of the fire here and there?
> 
> John Wason
> 
> 
> 
> At 05:35 PM 4/22/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >Exactly right.  Kinzer's position seems similar to
> that of the
> >left-liberal extreme of respectable opinion
> regarding Vietnam,
> >e.g., Anthony Lewis in the NYT in 1969, that the
> war had begun
> >with "blundering efforts to do good" but had become
> a
> >"disaster" -- at a time when 70% of the public
> regarded it as
> >"fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake."
> --CGE
> >
> >
> >David Green wrote:
> >
> > > I think that Kinzer does a great service, but I
> would
> > > have at least one concern. From the portions of
> the
> > > interview yesterday on DN that I saw, he seems
> to be
> > > saying that--for example--if only we hadn't
> overthrown
> > > Mossadegh in 1953, we would have had a liberal
> > > democracy in Iran all these years, and wouldn't
> the
> > > whole Middle East look different, implying that
> our
> > > leaders would be happy with that. Well, yes it
> would,
> > > and no they wouldn't, and that's exactly why we
> > > wouldn't allow that to happen. Kinzer still
> subscribes
> > > (I think) to the "good intentions gone wrong"
> version
> > > of history, rather than imperial intentions done
> well,
> > > if messily, with too many dead bodies left
> behind. We
> > > put a lot of effort into making sure that Arab
> > > nationalism could not set a bad example for the
> Middle
> > > East--in Iraq in 1958, in Egypt in 1967, etc. We
> put a
> > > lot of effort into making sure that Saudi Arabia
> does
> > > not become democratic, or Kuwait, for that
> matter.
> > >
> > > David Green
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com