[Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart13 at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 20 17:09:32 CDT 2008
Carl,
Most people ARE fools, bless 'em... from flag-waving super patriotism, to falling for phone, etc scams, to faith in lottery tickets/other gambling, to credit card debt, etc etc, not to mention participation in certain religious, etc beliefs, and mindless consumerism (it definitely pays to advertise to the American public), taste in TV shows, movies, music... I can't believe you think otherwise!
--Jenifer
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 2:24 PM
The draft was ended precisely to prevent the sort of mutiny the US faced in
Vietnam, and to some extent it worked.
G. Bush I said that the major effect of Gulf War I was, "By God, we've
kicked
the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all!"
But people are not fools, and what's happening in Iraq is coming through --
from
the Abu Ghraib pictures to Taguba's report.
The unprecedented propaganda might of the US is slowly wearing away -- 70% of
the US populace is opposed to this war, and it's the job of our political
class,
Democrat and Republican, to make sure that that doesn't make any
difference. So
far they've done a pretty good job.
Hence President Obama will be "as careful about getting out as we were
careless
about getting in." (In fact, our leaders, Democrat and Republican, were
pretty
deliberate about getting in -- and intend to stay: note what Obama and the
other
Democrats are saying about "AfPak.") --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Plenty of info out there if folks are interested in doing more than
> tuning in to Rush and O'Reilly for reassurance (I think most voters
> probably don't even bother doing that).
>
>
>
> Vietnam soldiers fought that war for a long time before they revolted...
> and no sign that those in Iraq and Afghanistan are ready to do the same
> in sufficient numbers to end those wars, so just seeing what's going
on
> doesn't do it. I personally don't think most people are paying all
that
> much attention, period, and probably never have in recent decades. So
> yes, it's up to activists to lead the way to the truth that that
> thoughtful commited few can't overlook (although largest
demonstrations
> ever around the globe against military action against Iraq didn't have
> any effect on the Bush Admin going ahead w/ the attack anyhow)... and
> for all of us to help elect the best candidates from the bottom
> up... and then encourage them to be even better.
>
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Thu, 6/19/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy
> To: jencart13 at yahoo..com
> Cc: "Sarah Tedrow-Azizi" <sftedrow at gmail.com>,
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "LAURIE"
<LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 10:11 AM
>
> You confuse the small political elite and the parties that represent
them
> (Republican and Democrat) with the large majority of the population.
The US
> spends about a third of of its GDP each year to manufacture the
consent of that
>
> larger group. It works. As a result, most Americans are
substantially misled
> about what the US does around the world. If they knew, they'd be
appalled
> --
> as, you rightly point out, the draftees sent to Vietnam were when they
saw it.
> They consequently revolted. The task for activists is to produce
that same
> consciousness today. --CGE
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> > Carl wrote:"If most US citizens actually knew what was being
done in
> > their names, they would be appalled."
> >
> >
> >
> > First, an appalling number of people know exactly what the US is
doing
> > in their names and they're fine w/ it. They start w/ the
premise that
> > the US is entitled to its empire and has a responsibility to run
the
> > world (some of these people repeatedly vote to fund the appalling
> > behavior done in all our names).
> >
> >
> >
> > Second, the MSM and school curriculae give the basic facts of US
> > behavior since its inception. Manifest Destiny, acquisition of
Indian
> > lands (and Hawaii) does not appall them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Third, the MSM and school curriculae give basic facts of US
behavior
> > since 9/11. Starting two wars of revenge for a terrorist attack
by 20
> > men did not appall them. As the behind the scenes machinations of
the
> > Bush administration have become sensational news, there has not
been
> > much of an outcry from citizens (or lawmakers) showing they care
all
> > that much about what has been done in their names. (The US
electorate
> > did not end the war in Vietnam, even after the Melai massacre hit
the
> > front pages; the unwillingness of those in uniform to continue
fighting
> > ended the war..)
> >
> >
> >
> > Fourth, 35 articles of impeachment by Dennis Kucinich (who also
got the
> > word 'out there' during two runs for the Democratic
nomination for
>
> > president... and got less than 5% of the vote) were not acted
upon by
> > most who heard them...
> >
> >
> >
> > Fifth, lotsa books exposing appalling US actions have hit the
best
> > sellers' list (and I'm hoping the 35 Articles of
Impeachment will
> soon
> > join them!) but most US citizens don't read those books...
and
> don't pay
> > all that much attention when the highlights hit the MSM.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd call myself realistic rather than elitist... but
regardless, I do
> > believe the Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small
group of
> > thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is
the
> > only thing that ever has."
> >
> >
> >
> > --Jenifer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On *Wed, 6/18/08, C. G. Estabrook
/<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> >
> > From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy
> > To: "Sarah Tedrow-Azizi" <sftedrow at gmail.com>
> > Cc: jencart13 at yahoo.com, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net,
> "LAURIE"
> > <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
> > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:47 PM
> >
> > You're welcome; I entirely agree. If most US citizens
actually
> knew what
> > was
> > being done in their names, they would be appalled. That
shows what
> groups like
> >
> > the well-named AWARE should be doing. --CGE
> >
> >
> > Sarah Tedrow-Azizi wrote:
> > > Thank you for putting this so eloquently.
> > >
> > > It's a dangerous path to write off an entire
population as
> > "idiots," or
> > > even "willingly ignorant," and takes the tone
of
> elitism. We
> > only have
> > > access to the information we are given, and often that
access is
> a
> > > product of privilege. It makes little sense that anyone
would
> make a
> > > deliberate choice to be uninformed.
> > >
> > >
> > > C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > >> Given that policy is largely insulated from politics
in the
> US, why
> > >> don't we pay attention to what US citizens
actually
> think, rather
> > than
> > >> what the media tell us they think -- and rather than
> dismissing them
> > >> as "idiots" on the basis of that very
policy?
> > >>
> > >> Both political parties and the media are far to the
right of
> the
> > >> general population on a whole host of issues and the
> population is
> > >> purposely atomized and kept apart from political
issues; they
> know
> > >> they can't really affect them -- which is why
they
> don't care
> > too much
> > >> if Gore/Bush, Kerry/Bush. or Clinton/Obama/McCain
become
> president..
> > >> Specifically on foreign policy, the point has been
made
> recently by
> > >> Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton in their book,
"The
> Foreign
> > Policy
> > >> Disconnect."
> > >>
> > >> "Drawing on a series of national surveys
conducted
> between 1974
> > and
> > >> 2004, Page and Bouton reveal that -— contrary to
> conventional wisdom
> >
> > >> -— Americans generally hold durable, coherent, and
sensible
> opinions
> >
> > >> about foreign policy. Nonetheless, their opinions
often stand
> in
> > >> opposition to those of policymakers, usually because
of
> different
> > >> interests and values, rather than superior wisdom
among the
> elite ....
> > >> [For example] the public consistently and
overwhelmingly
> favors
> > >> cooperative multilateral policy and participation in
> international
> > >> treaties. Moreover, Americans’ foreign policy
opinions are
> seldom
> > >> divided along the usual lines: majorities of
virtually all
> social,
> > >> ideological, and partisan groups seek a policy that
pursues
> the goals
> > >> of security and justice through cooperative
means."
> > >>
> > >> "Sometimes government-media propaganda dupes
the public
> -- on
> > Saddam
> > >> and 9/11, to take a dramatic example. We know the
means very
> well:
> > >> huge government-media propaganda exercises, which do
have
> detectable
> > >> effects. But quite often the public is not duped and
> continues to
> > >> oppose the policy decisions of the government, the
media, and
> elite
> > >> opinion, as public opinion studies reveal."
> > >>
> > >> "The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations,
which
> regularly
> > monitors
> > >> American attitudes on international issues,
illustrates the
> > >> disconnect. A considerable majority of Americans
favor
> 'working
> > within
> > >> the United Nations, even when it adopts policies
that the
> United
> > >> States does not like.' Most Americans also
believe that
> > 'countries
> > >> should have the right to go to war on their own only
if they
> (have)
> > >> strong evidence that they are in imminent danger of
being
> > attacked,'
> > >> thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on
'pre-emptive
> war.'
> > >>
> > >> "On Iraq, polls by the Program on International
Policy
> Attitudes
> > show
> > >> that a majority of Americans favor letting the UN
take the
> lead in
> > >> issues of security, reconstruction and political
transition
> in that
> > >> country."
> > >>
> > >> We see what voters actually say on these matters in
countries
> like
> > >> Venezuela and Spain, which are more democratic than
ours.
> Even after
> > >> the intense media campaign that was the "Reagan
> revolution"
> > (in no
> > >> election did more than one fourth of the eligible
voters vote
> for
> > >> him), polls showed that about 80 percent of the
public
> thought that
> > >> the government works for the few and the special
interests,
> not for
> > >> the people. (The numbers have undoubtedly gone up in
the Bush
> years.)
> > >>
> > >> So we can pay attention to what serious survey data
reveals
> about the
> > >> real political views of Americans, or we can trust
what we
> > "know"
> > >> about those "idiots" (so different from
us) -- our
> knowledge
> > being a
> > >> product of the US media... --CGE
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080620/625acdd6/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list