[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Thu Oct 21 10:33:50 CDT 2010
That bumpersticker mantra is older than you imagine.
"Kick their ass! Take their Gas!" was on the t-shirt of the
horn-tooting protagonist in R. Crumb's "It's the Ruff Tuff Creampuff",
(who appeared in [Fall into the Depths of] Despair Comix, 1969)
"The best solution anyone has found is to sit and do nothing".
On 10/21/2010 11:08 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> That quite remarkable contempt for the political perspicacity of your
> fellow citizens is all too typical of the political class in this
> country, but it's not very democratic.
>
> The federal government doesn't quite agree with you. That's why it
> spends so much time and money on "the manufacture of consent" (and why
> snake-oil salesmen like Obama get ahead). The public has to be
> managed, not indulged, they think - it's their only real enemy, as
> Vietnam showed.
>
> That after all was Jefferson's view: he thought that people "are
> naturally divided into two parties: (1.) Those who fear and distrust
> the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of
> the higher classes. (2.) Those who identify themselves with the
> people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
> honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public
> interests."
>
> I'm a democrat, so not a Democrat. --CGE
>
>
> On 10/21/10 9:51 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>> I don't disagree with any of that. So what? And as for wars for
>> oil, maybe you better hope they /keep/ lying about it, because if
>> Americans were confronted with that stark reality, most of them might
>> be down with it. When Alan Greenspan said so publicly, there was no
>> big outcry. Barely lasted a full news cycle. I remember seeing a
>> bumper sticker when the Iraq war started: "Kick their ass. Take
>> their gas." I think that's basically where most Americans are on the
>> issue, and the main reason the Iraq war has become so unpopular
>> (people were 2-1 in favor at the time, if the polls can be believed)
>> is that the cheap gas never materialized. We're still paying through
>> the nose. Most people support resumed drilling in the Gulf right
>> now. They don't care if it turns into the Rancho La Brea tar pits.
>> They want gasoline for their cars. I saw a poll just within the last
>> week -- can't remember exactly, but something like, would you be
>> willing to pay an additional 4 cents a gallon for, I don't know --
>> lower CO2 emissions or something. The majority said, "No." So
>> that's where you need to start -- not with the Democrats. I think
>> the Democrats are about the left party that the American left
>> deserves right now. We've been ineffectual and inept. That's our
>> reward.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> *To:* Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>; Peace-discuss
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> *Sent:* Thu, October 21, 2010 9:03:01 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
>>
>> On the Carter administration, see the famous interview his National
>> Security Adviser gave to Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998:
>> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html> (in English)...
>>
>> "Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
>> fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
>> "B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban
>> or the collapse of the Soviet empire? /Some stirred-up Moslems/ [sic]
>> or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?..."
>>
>> It's true that the US has been committing crimes in order to control
>> Mideast oil since the Truman administration, when we saw that we
>> could displace an exhausted Britain in the region. First, British
>> oil companies were replaced with American ones, and concomitantly the
>> US began the policy - which Obama continues - of controlling the
>> countries of the region by alliance, subversion, or aggressive war (=
>> what we were busily condemning German leaders for, at Nuremberg).
>>
>> Benchmarks are our destruction of democratic government in Iran
>> (1953), which Americans have forgotten but the Iranians haven't;
>> adoption of Israel as our "cop on the beat" (as the Nixon
>> administration said) after they launched their 1967 war to destroy
>> secular Arab nationalism; our sponsorship of Saddam Hussein in the
>> Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88; our covert sponsorship of the religious-based
>> Hamas to undercut the secular PLO; and Clinton's murderous sanctions
>> on Iraq (by which he killed as many people as Bush did, many of them
>> children whose deaths were "worth it," according to Clinton's
>> Secretary of State).
>>
>> The US has consistently demanded control of Mideast energy resources
>> since WWII, not because we need them - the US was a net exporter of
>> oil until recently, and now imports less than 10% of the oil we use
>> at home from the Mideast, mostly from our ally Saudi Arabia - but
>> because control of world hydrocarbon supplies gives us an advantage
>> over our real economic rivals, the EU and East Asia (China and
>> Japan). That's what Obama (and other presidents) is sending
>> Americans to kill and die for, so it's obvious that he like the
>> others has to invent excuses, especially when two-thirds of the US
>> public, even though they're being lied to, thinks the war a bad idea.
>>
>> When Al Qaeda launched their criminal raids on US cities in 2001,
>> they were clearly and consciously staging a counter-attack to more
>> than a generation of US crimes in the Mideast. They said at the time
>> that there were three reasons for their counterattack: (1) the
>> sanctions on Iraq, called "genocidal" by successive UN overseers; (2)
>> the suppression of h the Palestinians by America's chief client,
>> Israel; and (3) the occupation of Saudi Arabia (and the Muslim holy
>> places) by American troops after Bush I's Gulf war, in 1991.
>>
>> It's not just those who point out that the Obama administration is,
>> by and large, Bush's third term who note the continuity of US policy
>> in the Mideast, which Obama if anything has intensified - as he said
>> he would, as far back as his campaign for the Senate, when he
>> discussed "surgical strikes" on Iran, still I think a real
>> possibility, along with open war with Pakistan. BHO is down with the
>> program, and only a few are criticizing it - of course many more in
>> the country that in Congress.
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/10 8:05 AM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>>> Well, that strikes me as quite a stretch to lay responsibility for
>>> the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the back of Jimmy Carter. I could
>>> take your logic just a small step further and put it on FDR. Or
>>> William McKinley. Or James K. Polk. Plus it ignores the question
>>> of why three subsequent Republican presidents failed to end it, as
>>> your premise indicates they should have done. It is a sad fact that
>>> since the disastrous and misguided McGovern campaign (God bless
>>> him), Democrats have been so bullied and intimidated by charges of
>>> being anti-military (not that there's anything wrong with that) that
>>> they too often feel compelled to prove they have gonads. I thought
>>> Clinton kept Saddam around just to have somebody to bomb when he
>>> needed to look tough. That's murderous and deplorable and certainly
>>> won't get him into heaven, but that's the political landscape we
>>> find ourselves in. Deal with it. Anyway, wealth and power breed
>>> arrogance. Americans, like the British, Spanish, Romans, and every
>>> great empire before us, think we should have our way just because
>>> God obviously loves us so. (If He didn't, we wouldn't be an
>>> empire.) That's human nature, and liberals are just as susceptible
>>> to it as conservatives. More often than not, Democratic militarism
>>> just takes the form of seeing to it that veterans actually receive
>>> the benefits they've been promised, for which they get no credit
>>> whatsoever. And "spineless" is not the same as "evil" in my eyes.
>>> The "spineless" need to be encouraged. The "evil" need to be
>>> stopped. Who can blame the Democrats for being spineless? Who's
>>> got their backs? The left?
>>> I'm a Bernie Sanders kind of guy. I don't really consider myself a
>>> Democrat, but I caucus with them because I think the alternative is
>>> so much worse. But if you /really/ can't see /any/ difference
>>> between, say, Karl Rove and Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going to waste
>>> any more time arguing with you. You're not serious.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> *To:* Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
>>> *Cc:* Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>; Peace List
>>> <peace at lists.chambana.net>; Peace-discuss
>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> *Sent:* Wed, October 20, 2010 11:09:24 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
>>>
>>> First, Iraq and Afghanistan are both part of what the Pentagon calls
>>> "The Long War" (for oil) in the Mideast. So far, the US has killed
>>> a million people in Iraq under Clinton (whose Secretary of State
>>> said that the tens of thousands of dead children were "worth it"); a
>>> million under Bush; and apparently hundreds of thousands in AfPak
>>> under Bush and his third (Obama) term.
>>>
>>> That falls short of the perhaps 4 million we killed in SE Asia, but
>>> of course Obama's escalated murders in SW Asia are in no way
>>> justified by being fewer in number than Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon's in
>>> Vietnam.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to determine when the Long War begins, but it takes a
>>> tick up in the Carter administration when Carter (and Obama's)
>>> adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski sends Osama bin Laden and friends into
>>> Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) "to give the Russians a
>>> Vietnam of their own," as he said at the time, in the most expensive
>>> CIA operation to date.
>>>
>>> If a Republican administration after 2012 brings Obama's AfPak war
>>> to an end, then we'll have a third example of a Democratic war
>>> concluded by Republicans in as many generations. But that may not be
>>> likely. The news suggests that the Obama administration is looking
>>> to expand the war with an attack on Pakistan and/or Iran. It
>>> certainly isn't looking to abandon the world's greatest
>>> energy-producing region.
>>>
>>> Control of Mideast energy resources has been a cornerstone of US
>>> foreign policy since 1945. Obama is simply lying when he says the
>>> war is to "stop terrorism" - it obviously increases terrorism - but
>>> he has to lie, because the only Constitutional authority he has to
>>> wage war in the Mideast is Congress' "Authorization for the Use of
>>> Military Force" of September 2001 - which is directed against
>>> terrorism.
>>>
>>> Something positive to do: years ago, there was a great debate in
>>> America, "How do we get out of Vietnam?" The best answer was given
>>> by Herb Caen: "Ships and planes." Load up the troops and bring them
>>> home. The Russians did - and survived and prospered from the end of
>>> their war.
>>>
>>> Eventually we did, but it took two presidents' being driven from
>>> office and (even more important) a revolt of the American conscript
>>> army to do it.
>>>
>>> Regards, CGE
>>>
>>> On 10/20/10 7:15 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>>>> So I conclude from your statement that you don't consider either
>>>> Iraq or Afghanistan to be "major" wars. So why are you so worked
>>>> up about them? I think you're just still mad at Lyndon Johnson.
>>>> And please, don't accuse me of being some kind of racist who
>>>> doesn't mind us murdering brown people. That is /so/ lame. It's
>>>> just that not all of us see the world in as simple terms as you
>>>> seem to. Simple solutions are nice, but they're mainly for the
>>>> simple-minded.
>>>> All I'm saying is if you're so gung-ho on stopping the war, why
>>>> don't you come up with something positive to do (as opposed to
>>>> sniping from the sidelines) that might help get us closer to that
>>>> goal? We'll all get behind you.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>> *To:* Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
>>>> *Cc:* Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>; Peace List
>>>> <peace at lists.chambana.net>; Peace-discuss
>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> *Sent:* Wed, October 20, 2010 5:10:40 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
>>>>
>>>> You are aware, are you not, that America's major wars since WWII -
>>>> called by synecdoche "Korea" and "Vietnam" - were started by
>>>> Democratic administrations and ended by Republican
>>>> administrations. Since the current Democratic administration has
>>>> greatly expanded the killing in AfPak, it's hard to argue that
>>>> they're going to reverse their policies. Voting for them is an
>>>> acquiescence to those policies.
>>>>
>>>> To say of Obama and the Democrats, "Let them kill some Asians,
>>>> because they might do some good someplace else," is at best a
>>>> counsel of despair, if not an outright criminal attitude.
>>>> Particularly when it seems that they're doing precisely the wrong
>>>> things elsewhere, too - not surprisingly, because they're working
>>>> for the owners of the banks, the insurance companies, the oil and
>>>> construction companies, etc. --CGE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/10 4:48 PM, Gregg Gordon wrote:
>>>>> Maybe because there are other important issues that she /does/
>>>>> agree with him on. The only way you're going to find a candidate
>>>>> you're in 100% agreement with is to run for office. If support
>>>>> for the war is an absolute deal breaker for you, fine. Not
>>>>> everybody sees it that way. But if you think the war will end
>>>>> sooner if more Republicans get elected, I think you're out of your
>>>>> mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>> *To:* Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* Peace List <peace at lists.chambana.net>; Peace-discuss
>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* Wed, October 20, 2010 4:33:52 PM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Fw: Money Can't Vote
>>>>>
>>>>> This guy supports the war. I can't see why anyone on an anti-war
>>>>> list would contribute to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/10 4:28 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>>>> Another request for help...
>>>>>> I love this guy!
>>>>>> --Jenifer
>>>>>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101021/33cff891/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list