[Peace-discuss] Hedges: only a candidate who calls for an
immediate end to the war...
Neil Parthun
lennybrucefan at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 10:38:16 CDT 2008
Policy wise, there was little stated difference between Gore and
Bush. Both are beholden to major corporate interests that write the
policies of the United States. After 9/11, Gore would have invaded
Afghanistan and it is a joke to think otherwise.
There is indeed a time for reality. As Tom said, it is idealistic to
believe that the Democratic Party who has had two years to stop the
wholesale slaughter in Iraq (with just the Congressional majority --
they've had opportunities since 2003 when they voted for the imperial
war policy) will do so when they get a D in the White House. Hell,
Pelosi said impeachment was off the table for the arch-war criminals
that currently inhabit Washington. Why?! If they are truly an
opposition party that truly was opposed to the imperial war policy,
then why not punish the President who started the war? They won't
even bring contempt charges against Karl Rove for not honoring a
subpoena. And I'm supposed to believe that these people will all of
a sudden take a principled stand and end the war immediately?
Obama has clearly stated his policies of continued war. Obama has
stated that military operations against Iran are still on the table.
Obama has clearly stated his opposition to many policies that I find
important (single payer health care, et al.) The idea of the lesser
of two evils keeps us beholden to a party that doesn't have to
actually stand up for what the people left of center believe in.
They can just shake the supposed boogeyman of the the "Insert
Republican Candidate X" and say that it could be worse. No, I find a
candidate who says that he is a friend of the working class and then
co-opts outrage about the war, etc. to better his electoral chances
is disingenuous, wrong and worse. The "lesser of two evils" approach
in Bush vs Clinton in the 1990's got us war, occupation, mass death
in Yugoslavia, welfare policies that punished the poor significantly,
sitting on the sidelines as a genocide of hundreds of thousands of
Rwandans took place and more -- and this was from a Democratic
President.
I base my vote off of what the candidates say. His slogan says it
all "Hope...". I'd rather have firm commitments from a candidate
before I give my vote rather than (to quote the classic song)
"wishing and hoping and praying" that Obama will do the things that I
find to be right -- such as ending the illegal, imperial occupations,
establishing a single payer health care system, expanding social
assistance programs, etc.
There is only this moment,
Neil
We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to
that which is simply because it is.
[angela v. davis, 1944-]
The point is, the only real tools we have are our eyes and our heads.
Its not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
comprehending what we see.
[warren ellis, 1968-]
On Aug 1, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
Yeah, Nader said no difference betw Gore and Bush, and look what that
got us. Okay, you and I (and Hedges) are still alive and well, but
the millions of Iraqis dead or displaced, the thousands of Americans
dead or disabled, those who have lost their homes, jobs, health care
and other benefits beg to differ.
Are there more similarities than we'd like between Obama and McCain,
esp wrt exiting Iraq? Yes. Are there also huge differences on other
key issues, esp domestic ones? Yes.
There is a time for idealism and a time for reality. That time is
now. On behalf of those sharing the planet w/ you, choose reality...
and continue to work for the ideal -- you'll have a better chance of
getting closer to that w/ Obama.
--Jenifer
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Hedges: only a candidate who calls for
an immediate end to the war...
To: kmedina at illinois.edu
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 2:23 AM
As the late, great Eugene V. Debs stated: "I'd rather vote for
something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't and
get it."
McCain is open about his imperialism in the Middle East. People
have, and rightly so, criticized McCain's imperialist linguistics/
policies. However, it is a misconception and disingenuous to state
that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "Republican wars" or
"Bush's wars".
Let's not forget that Congressional Republicans and Democrats
authorized the use of force, authorized the Nuremburg Tribunal
violating invasion of a country that did not attack us and has
continued to fund an illegal, immoral and imperialist occupation.
The Democrats seized Congressional power in 2006 with the masses'
dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. What have they done since they've
seized power? A whole lot of nothing major to end the war that they
were given the power to stop.
The idea that Nader is evil is absolutely laughable and an unfair
characterization. All left of center votes are not already
prescribed to the Democratic party. As I watch a party continue to
fund an illegal, imperialist war...As I watch a party sell out the
4th Amendment while accepting AT&T funding/gifts for the DNC...As I
watch a party given the power to end the war yet do nothing...As I
watch a party who watches flagrant high crimes and misdemeanors
taking place on such an epic and open scale that it boggles the
imagination and does nothing. As I watch all of this, it is quite
clear why people vote for 3rd party candidates. They are tired of
their interests being sold out after being co-opted (see the anti-war
mandate of '06, for example).
If anybody wants to place the blame on so-called spoilers, blame it
the Democratic party and Obama. These candidates need to earn the
votes of people. Obama's candidacy should have a warning signal:
This candidate makes wide right turns. Obama is for a continued
military presence in the Middle East despite the Rand Corporation
stating that a military operation is not the optimum way to combat
terrorism. Obama is for the "White Man's Burden" style of
imperialism -- the idea that we can't dare leave Afghanistan or Iraq
because the Afghanis and the Iraqis sure as Hell don't know how or
can't form their own government and security themselves. I sure as
Hell can't vote for that.
Obama has also stated that he would attack and bomb Pakistan if they
didn't do as we said. He's supported the apartheid regime in
Israel. He's for aggressive wars as well and seems to be for the
"Bush Doctrine" of aggressive wars but in alternative forums
(Afghanistan/Pakistan/Palestine, not Iraq).
But we're supposed to hold our nose and vote Obama? The idea of
lesser evilism has led to numerous problems and made the Democratic
party the opportunist that capitalizes on outrage for their own
electoral gain rather than fixing the problems that so many are
concerned about. It is the graveyard of social movements.
I agree with Hedges: I can't vote for a candidate that doesn't call
for an immediate end to this blatant imperialism.
There is only this moment,
Neil
We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to
that which is simply because it is.
[angela v. davis, 1944-]
The point is, the only real tools we have are our eyes and our heads.
Its not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
comprehending what we see.
[warren ellis, 1968-]
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080801/eeace307/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list