[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
Gregg Gordon
ggregg79 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 21 10:49:45 CDT 2010
Huh! That's a strange take. The quote I've been using lately is: "The surest
way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." To each his own, I
guess.
________________________________
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>; Peace-discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 10:33:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fw: Money Can't Vote
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/20101021/2ded3901/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list