[Peace-discuss] U.S. Out of Afghanistan Now

[C. G. Estabrook]

Sure, but it's hardly the only factor.  A war leader may honestly want to 
preserve the Union or to protect his countrymen against the machinations of the 
Jews. Our political action would depend on the accuracy of his assessment and 
the worthiness of his goals. --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:43:30PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> John--
>>
>> The essential propaedeutic (I knew you'd like my using the word) for any 
>> effective political action is an accurate account of the situation.
> 
> Hmm.  Including the (guessable but rarely measurable) motivations of the actors?  Why?  
> 
>> In the absence of a good analysis, the best will in the world can do the 
>> right thing only by accident. So it's essential to understand what's really 
>> going on.
>>
>> If you think the economic deprivation of the majority is a result of the 
>> machinations of the Jews, you'll pursue different political remedies from 
>> what you'd do if you think it's a result of the machinations of the 
>> capitalists. That's what August Bebel (1840-1913) meant when he said, 
>> "Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools."
>>
>> Today, Obama's war is the anti-terrorism of fools. But Obama (and Bush) is 
>> not a fool.  Therefore he's doing it for some other reason.  It's 
>> worthwhile knowing why he's killing people, if we want to stop it.
>>
>> In the US, we didn't have much success with that for a century or so, but I 
>> think Vietnam -- in conjunction with the civil rights movements and the 
>> liberation movements from the 60s and 70s -- changed things a bit.  That's 
>> why the neoliberal counter-attack of the last quarter of the 20th century 
>> was seen by our rulers as so necessary. They were deeply frightened by the 
>> success of "the sixties movements." And that's why today those struggles 
>> have to be ritually repudiated by anyone seeking the approval of the 
>> American ascendancy. (For a notable example, see "The Audacity of Hope.")
>>
>> Throughout that period, it's been the Democratic party, from Wilson to 
>> Obama, that has been the instrument in the US for corralling "progressives" 
>> into support for the regime.  It's instructive to learn what "Wilsonian 
>> idealism" -- which the US leadership consciously opposed to "Leninist 
>> socialism" -- meant in practice in regard to war, labor, Europe, Latin 
>> America, etc.  We are the heirs of a century of that intellectual 
>> corruption.
>>
>> And, after a century, our rulers think that there's more danger of our 
>> winning than you do. That's why they're willing to go to such lengths to 
>> prevent it.
>>
>> The question is indeed as Chomsky put it in the book Chavez praised at the 
>> UN, "Hegemony [of the US rulers] or Survival."  I prefer the latter -- and 
>> want to continue with the progress we've made against the former.  Regards, 
>> CGE
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>> If by "long-range mind-reading" you mean attempting to understand what the 
>>> US
>>> government is actually doing, behind its propaganda, I should think that 
>>> that
>>> was the first thing a group that wants to be AWARE should be doing.  --CGE
>>> Carl....If we FULLY and COMPLETELY (am I being redundant?) accepted your 
>>> analysis of what the US government is doing, and has been doing for the 
>>> past
>>> 50 or 100 years....what would be the basis for any hope whatsoever?  Why
>>> wouldn't we just blow our brains out or set ourselves on fire, or retreat
>>> into hedonism or the oblivion of alcohol or drug addiction, or something?
>>> Why go on with any sort of political/civic involvement?
>>> J.W.
>>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> Our local efforts might be better spent, as usual, trying to organize
>>> something similiar here rather than long-range mind-reading.
>>> Ricky
>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>> --- On *Tue, 10/6/09, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>/* wrote:
>>> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>
>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Out of Afghanistan Now To: "Peace-discuss" 
>>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>> Date: 
>>> Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 9:53 PM
>>> [Dispelling some of the mendacious fog about how the "Obama team is really 
>>> rethinking Afghanistan" (when all they're doing, of course, is trying to 
>>> find
>>>  the best way to enforce their colonial control). --CGE]
>>> "The organizers of the October 7th protests note that the war and 
>>> occupation of Afghanistan is linked to U.S. interests in controlling 
>>> strategic energy resources and markets in central Asia."
>>> Students to Protest Afghan War on 25 Campuses (Oct. 7) Posted: 06 Oct 2009 
>>> 08:20 AM PDT
>>>> From the Students for a Democratic Society Antiwar Working
>>> Group: Demonstrations mark 8th anniversary of Afghan War -– demand 
>>> immediate U.S./NATO withdrawal
>>> Students on 25 campuses across the United States will protest eight long 
>>> years of war against and occupation of the people of Afghanistan, on 
>>> Wednesday October 7. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a 
>>> nation-wide student organization committed to activism for peace, justice 
>>> and equality, are organizing the protest...