[Peace-discuss] A fresh wind blows against the Empire.

[C. G. Estabrook]

But the truth of a proposition (e.g., "The US should withdraw from the Middle 
East") does not depend on the motives -- good, bad, or mixed -- of those who 
hold it.

(I realize that one can construct a logical exception, of the sort of the Cretan 
who says "All Cretans are liars.")

Eliot was right only in a personal, psychological, or ethical sense (important 
senses, of course) when he wrote "The last temptation is the greatest treason / 
to do the right deed for the wrong reason."  (And it's great poetry, too.)

In a political sense, one has to conclude that many of one's allies are doing 
the right deed for the wrong reason.  (That doesn't of course usually excuse one 
from talking about the right reasons.)  --CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:09:44PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Principled?  Will seems to me to be making a purely prudential judgment.  
>> Or, as we say today, "pragmatic," which means a judgment that specifically 
>> excludes ethical considerations.
>>
>> There are two quite different ways to oppose America's Mideast war:
>>
>> [1] it will cost too much to achieve US war aims; or
>>
>> [2] it's a crime.
>>
>> Will seems to be embracing [1], not [2].  --CGE
> 
> There is a Third Way, too:
> 
>   [3] Obama's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican, and therefore Obama's
> 	wars deserve criticism
> 
> ... as with G. W. Bush's opposition to Clinton's bombing of Iraq before
> his own election.   I suspect that Will wouldn't have written an article
> like this if we had McCain in the White House.
>> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>> /"People can try and fool themselves that...Obama truly wants peace. The 
>>> reality of facts on the ground dispute this.  We are deceiving ourselves 
>>> if we think otherwise.  Obama is fully on the trajectory of the Empire, 
>>> there is no denying this…I do not place the blame for imperial violence 
>>> on any president:  It is the system...What can the people do to counteract 
>>> our governments that don’t have our best interests in mind?"/
>>> - Cindy Sheehan
>>> Fresh Winds Blow Against the Empire, as the Nation Tires of Futile, 
>>> Endless, Back-Breaking War.
>>> by E. Wayne Johnson   republicmedia.tv (http://tiny.cc/ewjrmtv6sep09)
>>> Conservatives Flee Failed NeoCon Dogmata, while Anti-War Left Fumes at 
>>> Obama, and Former BHO Supporters Struggle to Fight Back Buyer's Remorse.
>>> After 8 years, nearly a trillion dollars spent (that's the "Official" 
>>> Figure, the "total spent" on the war when the "off-the-balance sheet" 
>>> expenditure is known undoubtably much much more), over 5100 US lives lost, 
>>> tens of thousands wounded, and more soldiers suffering from 
>>> shellshock/PTSD, what do Americans have to show for the sacrifice?  
>>> Bubkes.  Bubkes.  Who's got the bubkes?...  In the ancient Chinese classic 
>>> Sun Zi Bing Fa ("Master Sun's Art of War"), Master Sun advised 2500 years 
>>> ago that there are only two possible outcomes of War:  Survival or Ruin.  
>>> Considering that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had threatened our survival, 
>>> the inevitable ruin was anticipated by our wiser leaders, but not by those 
>>> who were in charge.
>>> In a couple of extraordinary columns last week in the Washington Post, 
>>> Conservative Pundit George Will speaks out against Bush's war which has 
>>> expanded into Obama's war.  "The war already is nearly 50 percent longer 
>>> than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars" says Will, who 
>>> finds a solution for military success in Afghanistan to be 
>>> "inconceivable".   Will also notes that the Iraqis are quite likely to 
>>> demand an end to the despised US occupation of their sovereign land, and 
>>> says "The United States should treat this as a Dirty Harry Moment: Make 
>>> our day.", meaning that a "Yankee Go Home" message from the Iraqi voters 
>>> should be the cue for our long-overdue departure from Iraq.  Will suggests 
>>> that there might be some need for a military force in the 
>>> Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, but nonetheless his principled stance 
>>> against the war is reminiscent of the pre-neocon Robert Taft Conservative 
>>> days when the GOP was the peace party and the Dems were the war party.
>>> Arch-neocon William ("Bloody Bill") Kristol wasted no time in asserting 
>>> that George had lost his "will" by "urging retreat, and accepting defeat", 
>>> and encouraging more expenditures and more effort and more troops in 
>>> Afghanistan.  One is not surprised to hear such from Bill Kristol and 
>>> gang.
>>> (read more:  http://tiny.cc/ewjrmtv6sep09)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss