[Peace-discuss] USG plans for Iraq and Iran -- and protesters?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Amidst the usual childishness, there are actually some serious points 
for discussion here.

Have you looked at American opinion on the war recently? The Democrats 
are frantically tying to make themselves electable by pinning this 
immensely unpopular war solely on the Republicans.  The Democrats' 
dilemma arises from the fact that they have no intention of abandoning 
the policy followed for half a century by all administrations in regard 
to Mideast energy resources.

Yes, of course the US should cease its imperial control over the Middle 
East, where it replaced the British and the French (with the help of its 
Israeli guard-dog).  The Iranian coup in 1953 and the Suez crisis three 
years later were heralds of the new age of imperialism in the region. 
What was new about the 9/11/01 attacks was that for the first time in 
fifty years the guns were pointed the other way.

If the US really wanted to lessen terrorism, and not simply maintain it 
as an excuse for further imperialist action, it would take seriously the 
motives of the 9-11 terrorists.  Britain dealt successfully with IRA 
terrorism only by addressing the grievances of the nationalist community 
in Ireland.

The reasons offered by al-Qaeda for its 9-11 attacks were [1] the 
murderous sanctions against Iraq (Clinton has probably still killed more 
Iraqis than Bush jr, although it's close), [2] the oppression of the 
Palestinians, and [3] the presence of the American military in Muslim 
religious centers, owing to the tight US alliance with the world's 
greatest oil producer, Saudi Arabia.  According to the WSJ, these 
opinions were generally shared throughout the Middle East at the time of 
the attacks by people otherwise appalled by the crimes themselves.

Following the Tweed Rule in US politics, Americans almost certainly will 
have a choice in the presidential election between a pro-war Republican 
and a pro-war Democrat.  As it stands, I'll probably vote for Ron Paul 
in the Feb. 5 primary as the best way to register an anti-war vote, the 
Republican nomination probably being less locked in than the Democratic. 
  In the general election I'll vote for the less bad "major" candidate 
-- or, if the presidential election in Illinois is a foregone 
conclusion, as it has been in all recent presidential elections, I'll 
follow Debs' rule and vote for what I want.  (That's been Nader in the 
last three quadrennial quadrilles.)

Certainly we should work to establish health-care as a right for all 
(along with income, housing, eduction, etc.), and not a gift from the 
government to the poor.  But regarding the recent history of 
"entitlements," it's the last Democratic administration that did most to 
destroy them ("ending welfare as we know it") and the subsequent 
Republican administration that did most to expand them, in the Medicare 
drug bill (admittedly primarily a gift to the pharmaceutical industry).

Regarding personal liberties, we have recently been reminded that it was 
Clinton who brought us the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
Act of 1996" -- among other things a sweeping and unconstitutional 
limitation of habeas corpus.  The Democrats who voted for the Military 
Commissions Act last fall were just being good Clintonians.

Finally, why is the dollar declining?  In fact, all recent Treasury 
secretaries, Republican and Democrat, have been trying to get it to do 
so, to deal with America's huge foreign trade imbalance.  (Foreigners 
still have to send $2 billion to the US every day -- in exchange for 
IOUs -- so that the US can pay for what it buys abroad.)  That Paulson 
has finally succeeded (the dollar is at historic lows to the euro, 
sterling, etc.) seems largely due to a credit crunch in the US -- 
brought on by the vast exploitation of the poor by banks and described 
delicately as the "subprime crisis."  Given her constituency, President 
Clinton will not move for a strong dollar, I'm sorry to say -- I like 
London.

--CGE

Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
> ...
> Why complain?  You apparently are chomping at the bit for the dems to 
> make themselves unelectable and put yet another pro war republican in 
> the white house in 2008 by pulling everything out of the whole ME 
> immediately. Logically, you should pick a republican candidate to 
> endorse as the least odious choice should you get your way, and prepare 
> your compatriots for resumption of hostilities at that time, as well as 
> the end of the entitlement programs the repubs are determined to 
> destroy, further restrictions on personal liberties, and the eventual 
> devaluation of the dollar to third world currency status.
> 
>  Or do you lack the courage to stand up for the logical results of your 
> convictions?