Left and Right Against the Military Industrial Complex

73 posts / 0 new

Last post

Wed, 2009-04-01 12:18

contrarianna

An article which suggests that the antiwar left and right can pursue some common strategies.

Foreign Policy in Focus

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6004

Left and Right Against the Military Industrial Complex
Jon Basil Utley | March 31, 2009

Quote:
....
In practice, many on the left look at peace as "their" issue and don't promote or link to antiwar conservatives. Remember, however, the number of wars Democrats started and supported. And many conservatives and Republicans, at least the libertarian ones, opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Jude Wanniski, Murray Rothbard, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, and the Cato Institute. Paul Weyrich expressed opposition to the war. Lew Rockwell once even made a list of those opposed to starting wars. Because the neoconservatives captured the deep-pocketed right-wing foundations — Heritage, Bradley, Scaife, and Olin — many antiwar conservatives feared openly questioning the war. Until the advent of The American Conservative magazine in late 2002, antiwar conservatives could scarcely even get published.

Today the pro-war religious right is far weaker than before, because many old-time leaders — Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson — have died or retired. Younger evangelicals now focus on social, personal, and environmental issues. Rick Warren, for instance, doesn't talk about starting wars.

With the pro-war right on the decline, the anti-war left and right converging in their critiques, and the global economic crisis providing a cost-cutting rationale, there has never been a better time to take on the military-industrial complex. Here are 10 ways to begin.
....

Wed, 2009-04-01 12:54

Golbez

Well, a traditional conservative would not like to see their country overspending on anything, even the military. There has been no obvious economic benefit to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the American people, so as a simple cost-benefit analysis, it's foolish spending.

The problem is always the loudmouths who will shout that being against the war is being anti-American/Anti-whatever, despite the fact that not wanting your soldiers to die for needless causes and spending billions upon billions to support said war is actually in the best interests of the US.

Wed, 2009-04-01 21:53

Frmrsldr

Harper is no traditional conservative.

I am a former soldier who is antiwar.

Thu, 2009-04-02 10:42

thanks

a psalmist's ode to bankers and warmongers;

"There is no such thing as pain for them;

their bodies are healthy and strong.

They do not suffer as others do;

no human misery for them!

So pride is their chain of honour,

violence the robe that adorns them.

Their malice oozes like grease;

their hearts overflow with schemes.

They scoff and speak evil;

arrogantly they talk of oppression.

They think their mouth is heaven

and their tongue can dictate on earth.

This is why my people turn to them

and sip up all they say,

asking, 'How will God find out?

Does the Most High know everything?

Look at them: these are the wicked,

well-off and still they increase in riches.'

After all, why should I keep my own heart pure

and wash my hands in innocence

if you plague me all day long,

and discipline me every morning?

Had I said, 'What they say is appealing,'

I should have betrayed your children.

Instead, I worried over the question,

difficult though I found it-

until I solved the mystery

and saw the end they had in store.

They are on a slippery slope...

until suddenly they become a wasteland-

finished, terrified to death.

Woken up, You shake them off

like delusions of a dream."

- from Psalm 73, vs. 4-20.

Thu, 2009-04-02 11:42

thanks

from the OP:

"In practice, many on the left look at peace as "their" issue and don't promote or link to antiwar conservatives"

prime example of this is the Canadian Peace Alliance call-out for demos this weekend, and Yves Engler's article at rabble today. Both use the term 'the Ukraine'. Even though they know, or ought to know by now, that use of that term 'reaches out' like a knife to the gut for many in this country, they continue to use that term. very unhelpful in the effort to make linkages. very de-energizing for those who are already struggling to broaden the movement's efforts.

i tossed around whether to bring this up, don't want to detract further from the day's energy, but there is still time for people to make this very simple edit in messaging.

other elements which leftists think they're educating some people about, many whose relatives fought or died fighting bolsheviks know far too well already, from direct experience, not academic propaganda. they're not writing anything new or revelatory. rather reinforcing old differences.

suggestions for new bridges? i've tried to outline some in the past;

-acknowledge bolshevik abuses, acknowledge current Russian abuses, acknowledge backroom deals of western rightists with eg. Stalin when they bought grain stolen from dead peasants. talk about Harper's oil corp backers' deals with Russian oil corps. talk about Russia giving arms to Karzai just as Harper supports the regime. these latter are particularly important because they undermine the rightist rhetoric that NATO is protecting people- actually Russia has talked about joining NATO at some point. focus on the role NATO has in promoting GLOBAL corporate control of resources. get beyond the east-west diatribe. get beyond the Russia-China Shanghai Cooperative vs. NATO narrative, because ultimately they reinforce eachother.

Thu, 2009-04-02 11:59

Frmrsldr

When the U.S. becomes arrogant and thinks that it is the world's only superpower, look at the result: war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, Israel wages a genocidal war against Gaza, armed by the U.S., the U.S. and Israel threaten war against Iran.

Sadly, it seems there need to be other powerful countries to keep (in this case) the U.S. in check.

It's a good thing that NATO and the U.S. are afraid of Russia, China and India. Imagine how much worse the world would be if these countries weren't seen as a threat by NATO and the U.S.

Thu, 2009-04-02 14:07

thanks

Frmrsldr, i don't really think that NATO and the US are 'afraid' of Russia, China and India. The US has a huge military arsenal. Further, the $$ elites in NATO, the US, Russia, China and India, do deals all the time. The only people who benefit from all this warmongering are the financiers who fund all the weapons development in all countries, and the people who suffer are the soldiers, the civilians, and the taxpayers, in every country.

The biggest 'threat' to NATO is the goodwill of people everywhere, of all stripes, who want an end to war.

Thu, 2009-04-02 14:16

thanks

i will say that sometimes it seems that many leftists are not as much interested in actually ending the war as they are in promoting their own versions of 'leftism'. if their top priority was actually ending the war, they'd be a little more careful in their messaging, as noted above.

the Winnipeg Peace Alliance site, linked from the Canadian Peace Alliance site, is having a debate on some of NATO-Russia issues, and they've put out a poster which shows Putin, and Medveyev looking askance under a NATO symbol. it is a provocative poster. hopefully it will succeed in getting people out, busting some myths on both sides, in a nice way, and moving beyond the usual narratives. the world does need peace very badly.

Thu, 2009-04-02 15:37

George Victor

Besides peace, we're also going to need Russia's natural gas very badly, Leigh (er thanks), and that is only because folks hereabouts don't want to do the math regarding our own profligate ways with energy.

I just wish that Gorby had had a little more gumption. A fine feller, but he blew it.

And your folks must have had a good word for the late Stanley Knowles?

Thu, 2009-04-02 18:05

#10

thanks

dad: "Stanley? Stanley...wasn't he the one who manufactured men's underwear?"

mom: "no dear, that was Stanfield..."

sorry, can't help you there George.

Thu, 2009-04-02 18:08

#11

thanks

[chuckle] sorry... we had to do machine work today, very 'unpolitical' neurons at this point in time...if they ever were much inclined that way, spent all their time raising kids and looking after old people.

Thu, 2009-04-02 20:33

#12

thanks

...and they're both getting hard of hearing...i'll try asking again another day...

on gorby, earlier;

mom: wasn't he glasnost and perestroika? loosening the claws a bit?

me, thinking: {yes he blew it. went too far the other way.}

dad: [after missing the question, went up to catch the 5:30 news.]

on gas- you mean from the Caspian basin? you mean across the BTK or a new route across S. Ossetia, through to the mouth of the Kuban river? or do you mean from the north? from the pristine waters of the arctic circle? if we're keeping to the topic of the OP here, i guess it's the conservation and alt. energy focus.

Thu, 2009-04-02 22:43

#13

George Victor

The military/industrial complex was a concept coined by Eisenhower, of course (his aides suggested he not include "academic" - which would have made it a far more comprehensive and real troika of blame). But it could have all been solved, I thought at the time, except that the U.S. (and other rightwing forces) corrupted Gorby's effort.

The OP carries a most heartening message. But along with the burial of the Falwells, we must inter talk of bolsheviks. (You may have heard that funny one that Tommy Douglas did about the white and black cats, mice and bolsheviks?)

Mouseland.

Fri, 2009-04-03 12:28

#14

thanks

nope, you'd better tell the mouseland one, haven't heard it. and i'm squinching on bolsheviks. it better be a good one.

i know, there was diversity there like everywhere else. so everybody has to acknowledge the diversity of bolsheviks. hope socialists are able to do this more publicly too (ie. they all weren't heroes nor all demons.)

telling a joke will be useful, but likely not enough. Tommy Douglas sure as hell didn't live through soviet bolshevism.

Fri, 2009-04-03 12:54

#15

remind

thanks wrote:
telling a joke will be useful, but likely not enough. Tommy Douglas sure as hell didn't live through soviet bolshevism.

It is a story/analogy not a joke. And I would have to say here, neither did you.

Anyhow here it is:

"This is the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played. Were born and died. And they lived much as you and I do. They even had a parliament. And every four years they had an election. They used to walk to the polls and cast their ballot. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. They got a ride for the next four years afterward too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day, all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big black fat cats.

Now if you think it’s strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats. You just look at the history of Canada for the last ninety years and maybe you’ll see they weren’t any stupider than we are.

Now I am not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows; they conducted the government with dignity. They passed good laws. That is, laws that were good for cats.

But the laws that were good for cats weren’t very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouse holes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much physical effort.

All the laws were good laws for cats. But oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn’t put up with it anymore they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse the polls.

They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. The white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said all that Mouseland needs is more vision. They said the trouble with Mouseland is those round mouse holes we’ve got. If you put us in we’ll establish square mouse holes. And they did. And the square mouse holes were twice as big as the round mouse holes. And now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn’t take that anymore they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. And then they went back to the white cats, and then to the black, they even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up with up cats with spots on them. They were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but they ate like a cat.

You see my friends the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cats. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats they naturally look after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends watch out for the little fellow with an idea. He said to the other mice. “Look fellows why do we keep electing a government made up of cats, why don’t we elect a government made up of mice?” Oh, they said, he’s a Bolshevik. So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can’t lock up an idea."

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/mouseland

Fri, 2009-04-03 13:11

#16

thanks

well i have to respond to the 'neither did you' before i can read the rest with a clear mind.

the thing is i lived with my grandfather for 5 years, and he did. some amazing stories too. he lived to age 103. and i had a great uncle who was taken to one of Hitler's camps, his wife was killed and his only child died there. some from that camp were sent by the allies after the war to Stalin, and were never seen again. lots died in the Holodomor. a few others made it to Canada. other relatives fought in the underground at different times. lots of stories i won't go into on internet. and these aren't one families' stories. an entire people experienced these things.

of course there were many who made different choices, people at babble have talked about this before. ok. so, now i'll read Douglas' story.

Fri, 2009-04-03 13:32

#17

thanks

it's a good story. it reveals the sense that bolsheviks were considered as those who upheld 'novel' ideas such as self-rule, that they were distrusted in a big way, for historical reasons, and that anyone who came up with a idea in support of the vulnerable was labelled bolshevik.

so where does that leave us in this thread? not sure. the story doesn't deal with the fact that there are people today who promote bolshevism, yet only in a few places can we find these promotions positioned simultaneously with critique of bolshevik historic abuses. Douglas seems to be talking about where a supporter-of-the-vulnerable is simply labelled bolshevik.

all this story does is reinforce the need, as mentioned above, for people to start out being clear about definitions- what a bolshevik is and what it is not, based on historic and current behaviour- the diversity of bolsheviks.

Fri, 2009-04-03 13:39

#18

thanks

and those who promote bolshevism need to acknowledge that the people they conquered had a millenia-old history of self-rule, and kept trying to reassert that, throughout the ravages of combined centuries of east-west imperialism and soviet bolshevism.

Douglas' story doesn't seem to deal with that aspect at all.

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:05

#19

thanks

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/guys-towers

there are some clarifications needed here- when people went to the Soviet Union in the '30's they were taken to specific places by the authorities to show off the 'successes' away from the death and starvation. e.g. Pulitzer Prize winner Duranty wrote for the NYTimes about how everything was fine, there was no famine. other correspondence of his revealed that he indeed knew differently, but produced lying propaganda. this is why there has been a movement to get his prize revoked.

it's the same thing that right-wing governments do now when they want to showcase eg. the Olympics in Vancouver, or a well-heeled meeting in Manilla - they move all the poor out or keep the visitors away from the spectacle. soviet rulers were no different.

Rick Salutin needs to acknowledge these elements if his article is to be taken seriously. it wasn't just ossified and stinking later. it started stinking the minute Lenin started torturing and murdering the rural poor.

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:13

#20

thanks

and the soviets called everything 'economic crimes' . anyone who strongly resisted their programs/pogroms was called 'bourgeois', down to each starving child. nothing to reminisce fondly about there.

really, i find it odd that someone of Salutin's stature would use these images as if there was no other reality behind them.

it's unfortunate as i agree with everything else in his article. the lack of deeper context on the soviet examples he's chosen makes it look like he doesn't know what he's talking about. which is too bad because it's important to have a broader portion of society grasp his correct current analysis of the G20.

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:16

#21

thanks

thanks remind, it seems that you're saying Douglas was talking about black and white cats as capitalist or bolshevik cats. that is not clear in the story. Douglas' story seems to refer more to Conservatives and Liberals.

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:38

#22

remind

thanks wrote:
and those who promote bolshevism need to acknowledge that the people they conquered had a millenia-old history of self-rule, and kept trying to reassert that, throughout the ravages of combined centuries of east-west imperialism and soviet bolshevism.
Douglas' story doesn't seem to deal with that aspect at all.

"the laws that were good for cats weren’t very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouse holes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much physical effort.

All the laws were good laws for cats. But oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn’t put up with it anymore they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse the polls.

They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. The white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said all that Mouseland needs is more vision. They said the trouble with Mouseland is those round mouse holes we’ve got. If you put us in we’ll establish square mouse holes. And they did. And the square mouse holes were twice as big as the round mouse holes. And now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

You see my friends the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cats. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats they naturally look after cats instead of mice."

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:47

#23

remind

The analogy identifies 3 types of cats and it is extendable beyond Canada to include everyone that is oppressed and exploited by the cats.

So we have capitalist, imperialist, and the generic other cats who make sounds like "mice" aka people, but they are still cats. As such, we can see them, the spotted cats, as those who have pretended they are for social justice and equality, but really they are just another guise of those who want to dominate and rule the masses, but cannot do so through traditional imperialist and capitalist means.

Fri, 2009-04-03 14:59

#24

George Victor

You are one very serious person, thanks. Forget bolshevism.

And, yes, Tommy and Stanley and all the other CCFers were compared to bolsheviks in their early years.

Google up some figures, enlighten the folks and read some Leacock (he studied under Thorstein Veblen back when Stalin was first arrested by the Czar's police.

And what does all of this have to do with lefft and right against the military industrial complex? Seems to me that a concept rising out of a cold war where people don't know enough history to understand the very political concepts that determine their lives - can't shed themselves of the cold war - will not be aided in their thinking by the resurrecttion of "bolshevism". Can't get deader, more irrelevant than that - this side of the pond. Of course, in eastern Europe (and some faith groups here) it may take centuries...but, then, they are perhaps not in the position we are to see the concept buried.

Mon, 2009-04-06 15:25

#25

thanks

ok, now that i've got a new browser..

-yes, remind, on cats that make noises like mice but are still cats.

- George, i think what happened back a few posts was that you said 'inter talk of bolsheviks' instead of what you might have wanted to say, 'interre talk of bolsheviks'.

in any case, some items were brought out, no problems i think. the Lenin photo at another thread certainly relieved some of my 'seriousness'...[grin].

so, where are we now.

oh yes, cold war.

i was reminded over the weekend of the efforts of many groups a while back to advocate that everyone step back from the brink.

ie) no one should be bombing or attacking anyone, like NATO should not be bombing or attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan, western-backed Sri Lanka should not be attacking Tamil refugees trapped in camps (see the Sri Lanka II thread), and other countries should loosen their grip of control over smaller nations who seek self-determination.

Ideally we'd have a situation where small nations, caught for centuries between big powers, would have opportunity for self-determination.

I'll just take Ukraine as an example here. east and west have wanted to control and own it, Germany, Poland, Austria, Russia, and now the US, and diverse financiers. After WWII, at Yalta it was decided by the Allies and Stalin, that Stalin would get Ukraine. Why? The west thought it was important to keep up a strong USSR to keep Germany at bay. So Ukrainians and other subjugated peoples got to enjoy totalitarianism for quite a bit longer. [as an aside here, in the early 60's Russia still had firm claws on subjected peoples and dissidents- maybe one reason NATO didn't want them 'in'. Aside from the obvious reason that NATO likes to have an enemy, so it can justify more arms $$ for its financial backers. Same with other military powers. All the big boys want their populations to continue channeling tax dollars to military expenditures, to keep their private coffers full.]

Today, as a result of crimes against humanity and historic Russification of Ukrainian territory, Russia continues to exert much political and economic control over Ukraine, which is resented by many. The EU also makes demands on Ukraine for its own interests, as does the US. Examples include the gas conflicts, Russian distribution of Russian passports amongst the population in Ukraine, US/EU IMF demands, on behalf of western corporations. Regarding the passport situation, i've heard it expressed that Russia will use the excuse of its passport holders to justify invasion in protection of those Russian passport holders, as it did in South Ossetia.

The South Ossetians, having been mercilessly bombed by Georgia, of course appreciated the Russian support. So we have a recent example of a western-backied country- Gerogia- resurrecting bombing attacks, Russia responding with some of its own bombs on ports. Others have said that positioning of NATO missile bases on Ukrainian soil is a threat to Russia. Which it is, to some degree. It's also a lot of other things. And so Russia responds and says it will bomb those who allow these bases. Conflict escalation. And Russia hands out passports in Crimea. and on it goes.

I brought up the name 'Kuban' before as the delta of the Kuban River was populated with Ukrainians over a millenium ago, and a diversity of peoples inhabited the region. Problematic were aggressive deportations and crimes against humanity conducted in the name of tsarist Russification and soviet Russification in Kuban, along with east-west decisions giving the territory ultimately to Russia, where it remains to this day. You can see how this region, in the bottleneck of land between the fossil fuel rich Caspian Basin and the Black Sea transport routes, is a powder keg. Recently, as was noted on babble, a journalist who covered the Chechnyan conflict was killed. Elsewhere, Ukrainians are still suffering from Chernobyl. The disaster zone covers the water sources and upper channels of the Dnieper River, thus is continually leaching contamination to the major populated areas of the country. Kyiv sits on that river as many know.

So there are a number of issues which haven't been dealt with well in the past, and which continue to be dealt with poorly, regarding Ukraine-Russia relations. These issues are carried over to Canadian politics, of left and right and east and west. i'm flagging them here so that babble readers more broadly can understand some of the dynamics, so that in future actions for peace and justice can be built around themes that will engender broader support.

We have people in this very thread at babble suggesting that a strong Russia is needed to hold the US at bay. Again the implication is that Ukrainians should consider it their just duty to align with Russia. Is this a reasonable request in the 21st century, given the history of peoples who have been tossed around like a football for centuries between large powers?

It seems to me that we are at a point where the vast majority of the world's inhabitants do not want war, and are tired of old and new superpowers. We need all the big guys to stand down. Everyone with nukes, with conventional armies, with controlling financial and military-industrial mechanisms needs to go home and chill out. Take a breather.

Then, all the smallish folk need to have a chance to recuperate and talk and work through some alternatives to the current global problems.

Many will say this is impossible given the current aggression of entrenched corporate powers. and it might be. but it's something i think movements for peace and justice need to do, in any case.

Mon, 2009-04-06 16:36

#26

fogbrella

thanks wrote:

It seems to me that we are at a point where the vast majority of the world's inhabitants do not want war, and are tired of old and new superpowers. We need all the big guys to stand down. Everyone with nukes, with conventional armies, with controlling financial and military-industrial mechanisms needs to go home and chill out. Take a breather.

Then, all the smallish folk need to have a chance to recuperate and talk and work through some alternatives to the current global problems.

Many will say this is impossible given the current aggression of entrenched corporate powers. and it might be. but it's something i think movements for peace and justice need to do, in any case.

The "smallish folk" are confused - by intent, by the "entrenched () powers" - to the point of not knowing what the hell is fact or fiction any longer

there's THAT little impediment to "recuperation" and "working through alternatives" toward peace

It's a misinformation campaign the "elite" has mounted - morphing toward believability whenever they're seemingly at-risk of exposure - and we DO need to fight that misinformation, with real data and honest viewpoints -

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0316-03.htm

Mon, 2009-04-06 16:45

#27

thanks

agreed with your comments, fogbrella.

now i'll look at the article.

Mon, 2009-04-06 16:57

#28

thanks

that is an American's self-critique. it would be useful to have a Conservative or Liberal Canadian do the same...

on the point of 'disrespecting the truth', here is an area where i believe there is much in common between 'left and right'.

the mainstream media treatment in Canada of the massacre of Tamils was appalling yesterday.

I listened to CBC radio news say how the Sri Lankan government had almost successfully re-taken control of Tamil territory.

Not a word that this was done by herding Tamils into camps and massacring them there! Women and children alike, body parts all over hospital floors.

Absolutely Disgusting. No decent person in this country would abide this. If they knew.

Mon, 2009-04-06 17:01

#29

thanks

my note in #28 referred to the article in #25. i'll need to look at the other articles still.

Mon, 2009-04-06 17:01

#30

fogbrella

it's in the same, depressing vein as http://bit.ly/imperialism_or_apocolypse

but again, to battle the "entrenched" view - which is widely extant, and "believed" - it's important - i think - to give lots of airing - LOTS - to these http://bit.ly/Bush_policy_alive_n_well and http://bit.ly/Obamas_Afghan_surge_secrets

One important example of the ongoing "entrenched" offensive, here we have Stephen Harper intimating that George Galloway is somekinda threat to national security, and, at the same time, we have Michael Ignatieff, loudly labelling George Galloway as, "a clown"...

THAT is the all-encompassing subtlety they'll stoop to, to further the neocon (ie Straussian) approach to, if not "peace", then "bustling trade" - in Arms and munitions.

Mon, 2009-04-06 18:14

#31

thanks

well, i just read the first article mentioned at post #27 here, and there's a lot of material in there. it seems to go over things that most people do know about already...haven't read the other articles yet. and have to get to other things still today..

I'm not a fan of Iggy, nor the Liberal party as a whole at present because they aren't doing what is necessary for peace, nor for the economy, nor the environment. they're just propping up Harper and the downward trend to ruin.

it's really too bad the coalition with Dion and Duceppe and Layton didn't get the opportunity to form the government. i think we'd have been better off.

Mon, 2009-04-06 18:27

#32

thanks

of course now we have the chance for the NDP to increase it's presence, and this can be good, if they stick to a program for ordinary people and the environment. i imagine that in any case there will still always be people who will vote Conservative or Liberal or Green, and that's what Parliament is for. What bothers me now is that the Harper/Ignatieff tag team are bypassing parliament altogether in many of their laws and regulations. that's not democracy.

Mon, 2009-04-06 19:39

#33

fogbrella

thanks wrote:

that is an American's self-critique. it would be useful to have a Conservative or Liberal Canadian do the same...

that "American's self critique" applies, universally, to any nation - or political party - which is furthering the PNAC's presented views, of "U.S. world hegemony" (but for Israel) - even if presented in another guise, and Harper and Iggy are equal partners IN that "other guise"
Recall who put the minister up to supporting the "ban" on George Galloway? the JDL - kissin' cousin to the AIPAC - and possessing the same overt and covert push for "War with Iraq".
the article is relevant to Canadians - see Iggy spin it: http://bit.ly/ignatieff_pre_Iraq
Iggy - in that article - echoes the PNAC doctrine perfectly - then, as PNAC doctrine became more widely disseminated (both just before and after the invasion of Iraq), "the Count" altered his stridency somewhat, and become "smallfolk" - eg: "Galloway's a clown!"
all in an effort to cover their tracks - Iggy should face-off with Galloway, in PUBLIC, in a series of coast-to-coast debates, if he really wants to prove the guy's "clown" status - but, as it is, he (iggy) is scared as hell of Galloway completely destroying all the subtleties they (the PNAC(and Straussian) proponents) have laid down up to now.
Therefore, there will NOT be any debating Mr. Galloway - and Iggy, for all his intellectual acumen, will settle for "he's a clown" - and that's it.
"OUT IGGY OUT!" would be this smallfolk's mantra

Mon, 2009-04-06 20:54

#34

fogbrella

hi thanks "most people know about already" ... well, that's gratifying - it really is - to know that informed Cdns are there - but I'm concerned that Canada via either Harper or Iggy - will reverse the earlier decision to "pull combat troops" from Afgh. - I think Mr. Harper has been reiterating the "official position" to lull everybody into a sense of complacency

my point, I think, in posting stuff that's "already known", is that people think it's in the past - the PNAC didn't intend to stop in Iraq, but to press on to Damascus and Beirut and Riyadh, if they had to, to "remake" the Muslim Middle East in the most-hopeful likeness of America.

Bush obliged the PNACers (known), followed their blueprints to launch against Iraq(known) by lying about it (already known) and now Obama - while it's common knowledge that he's "exiting" Iraq, in reality, there is no such thing.

Everybody has bought the notion that Obama's outa there... but uh-uh... no such thing. We need to understand that Exiting Iraq is a non-starter - even in these times of "restraint" - despite the expense - money that esp. America doesn't have - skyrockeTED deficits, debt, AND despite the increased radicalization of Muslims worldwide which all that BS (Big Spending - on Muslim nations... duh!

(Muslims KNOW what's going on - yer average "smallfolk" American and Canadian haven't got a clue).

Change? none. Obama's following the same plan laid down by Bush (PNAC), and Harper and Iggy are acquiescing (as Bush and Obama have) TO that plan

(as witnessed by their refusing Galloway - as per JDL pressure)

JDL and AIPAC are exactly on the same page - the PNAC/Likud page - create fear in people and trample over Palestinians and their chilren's children? I don't think so - NO way to peace and security! but that's the excuse as in Galloway

I think it's critical to link Harper, Iggy, and Bush - Canadians, i think, still really like Obama -but just 'cuz he ain't Bush - and probably aren't ready to have a lot of cold water tossed in their faces

But my fear is that Harper or Iggy WILL EXPAND Canada's "collusion" in AFghanistan - by hook or by crook -

wait for some unspeakable horror to emerge, as a pretext (9/11 worked for PNAC)

and Canadians will simply fall for it, given the level (I think) of unconsciousness (and propaganda) (eg headline: "Men allowed to rape their wives in Afghanistan" - okay, the law hasn't been passed, and it's now "set aside" - fine - but the enormous impression LEFT on Canadians - and the world - is that "these people are savages, and deserve our focused (military) what-for"

An election is fairly imminent - plus the economy could get a LOT worse - if the latter happened, a lot of people might resist a lot more, any further military action, wherever - so they'll try to move on this before that happens - but not before they soften us up with "outrage" at "them, over there"...

My dream? revitalize Galloway's message in the conversation of Canadians and get George Galloway MP and Iggy - live and in person - in a series of open and honest debates across-Canada - for three weeks!

If your reaction to that. given all of the above (links incl) was, "Ain't gonna happen"... then I'm really preachin' to the choir

and apologize for bendin' yer ear...

but here's hoping we can find some common ground to build on towards sanity and justice

and it won't include crude oil - which, along wiith corresponding freeways, filled with low-flyers - is largely what the problem IS in this crazy woyld...

it ain't about Israel, it ain't about Muslims, and it ain't about "democracy"

It's really about Oil and why we're juiced in it

Tue, 2009-04-07 11:55

#35

thanks

dear fogbrella, you are indeed preachin' to the choir. i am onside with your concerns.

i am glad you've gone over the issues, for others who might not be aware of these dynamics.

and sometimes we all need reminding.

i got online too today to put down a few lines that the OP here and some other threads connected in the neural networks...

- it needs to be said that some of the people/groups mentioned in the OP article have some very anti-progressive and unhelpful ideas on a number of issues, however we can disagree on those elements, and work on agreeing that war should end. it's a task. or several tasks.

- the psalmist i quoted existed a few millenia ago, and thus had his own culture reflected in language used, and translated centuries later. today people use many different names for 'God' and have many different understandings, if they choose to talk or think about what this means, or doesn't mean. There remains a sector on the 'right' who are very unwilling to consider 'God' other than a middle-aged or older male patriarchal figure. i'm not really sure how to deal with this, except to point out verses in the scriptures they adhere to wherein 'God' is also referred to as a hen with chicks, as female wisdom, or spirit embuing all life on earth...

and that latter element got me thinking about physical life, and how we're all connected.

in a very physical way, because of the globalization of food, ironically enough, our bodies now contain vitamins, minerals, amino acids (protein building blocks), enzymes, etc. from all over the world. quite literally. these elements are used by the systems in our bodies to form our cells. even our genes. so really, physically speaking, we are quite one with other peoples around the globe. in addition, our blood which is mostly water, is made up of H2O, elements which themselves circle the globe in gaseous as well as liquid form- clouds, rain, drinking water, breath.

so what all this means is that while at cultural levels there is much room for manipulating differences, at the most basic level of reality, we share almost everything with the bombed villagers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the maimed Tamil children, the assaulted women of the DRC, and others suffering the fallout.

-and these thoughts also linked up with other understandings of spirituality, very diverse, and also brought me back to the Greens, as in the Green Party, and whatever happened to talk of cooperating with political Greens? there was a thread here once on that subject. perhaps it was too formal an alliance, and simply more loose cooperation is appropriate. similarly with people in other parties.

anyway, just some thoughts. haven't had a chance to read all the other threads here at babble. trust lots of helpful things are being worked out...oh yes, now i remember specifically the link to the Greens- it was the comment at the Conservative Ontario candidate thread on the spring bear hunt. Personally, i think the spring bear hunt is an abomination, creating orphan young. The main purpose seems to be to support the lodge income in the north, hosting US and Canadian hunters. This is where we need viable income alternatives. Similarly if people shoot to feed themselves directly. Getting public control of finance, and public support for diverse economic alternatives will eliminate a large part of the motivation there. the macho element in shooting mother bears is another task, again, but linked to self-esteem and economic challenges.

so there's my ramblings for the morning...

Wed, 2009-04-08 12:01

#36

Fidel

thanks wrote:
We have people in this very thread at babble suggesting that a strong Russia is needed to hold the US at bay. Again the implication is that Ukrainians should consider it their just duty to align with Russia. Is this a reasonable request in the 21st century, given the history of peoples who have been tossed around like a football for centuries between large powers

I for one am not suggesting Ukraine raise the iron curtain again. And I think it would be a bad move for Ukraine, as Israel is under suspicion of, to send more weapons and military expertise to Georgia. Saakashvili is a pawn of the west in what seems to be an escalation of colder war and military encirclement of China and Russia.

And some people, including some percentage of Ukrainians, dont believe that Ukraine should become a member country of NATO. NATO is a cold war era alliance. NATO is an obsolete relic of the cold war and should be dismantled as was the USSR. The world has been there and done that. There is no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.

Wed, 2009-04-08 12:08

#37

thanks

Fidel, at present i think it's incredibly stupid for anyone to be sending weapons anywhere. nukes or conventional.

the whole weaponry thing has to be back-rolled, not bankrolled. that goes for NATO as well as the SCO, and any other aggressors.

Wed, 2009-04-08 12:38

#38

Frmrsldr

When the U.S.S.R became the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), when the former Communist Bloc countries became "Western style democracies(?)" when the Berlin Wall came down and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, this was for NATO what the current Great Depression is for GM and Chrysler. NATO was left scrambling, trying to find justification for its existence.

Rwanda and war in former Yugoslavia (esp. Kosovo) were a godsend. The "spin" the U.S., the U.K., Canada and NATO put on Rwanda and Kosovo is what got NATO to where it is today.

Wed, 2009-04-08 14:46

#39

thanks

i don't know a lot about the NATO role in Rwanda, but i do know that NATO was very bad in the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Thu, 2009-04-09 03:48

#40

Frmrsldr

When Romeo Dallaire was reporting to Canada what was going on in Rwanda, the world came to know what was happening. The issue was brought before the U.N. The executive branch of the U.N. is the Security Council made up of the Five Permanent Members: the U.S.A., the U.K., France, Russia (formerly U.S.S.R.) and China. The fact that the U.N. was so slow in finally deciding to send U.N. peacekeepers to Rwanda - after the genocide had occurred - suggests that the U.S. had a (financial) interest in the chaos in Rwanda and either had support or bullied or bought the support, compliance or apathy from the other Permanent Security Council members.

The reason why this was a godsend for NATO was U.S. commentators - John Bolton being a good example - used this to (supposedly) "expose" the U.N. as being weak. The U.S. used this as an excuse to flaunt international law by going to war either bipassing the U.N. through NATO, (a tool of the U.S.) by claiming that NATO is stronger and more effective - in the case of Kosovo and Afghanistan, or going alone - in the case of Iraq and (possibly) Iran and ....?

Thu, 2009-04-09 03:56

#41

Frmrsldr

Interesting how U.S. propaganda uses Rwanda 1994 U.N. failure/disaster to spin the story that the U.N. is weak and the Somalia 1995 NATO failure/disaster to spin the story that the world is a small place and very, very nasty - teaming with radical jihadist Islamic terrorists.

Thu, 2009-04-09 09:19

#42

thanks

thanks for those explanations in #39 and #40, Fidel, i hadn't heard that before, and it does make sense.

Thu, 2009-04-09 09:20

#43

thanks

did I say Fidel? [chuckle] guess it should have been Frmrsldr. sometimes you babblers get me all mixed up.

Thu, 2009-04-09 11:52

#44

Fidel

thanks wrote:
that goes for NATO as well as the SCO, and any other aggressors.

We're not seeing SCO countries occupying very many countries militarily in this hemisphere, our own "backyard"

[url=http://www.cdi.org/adm/transcripts/804/][b]US Army School of the Americas[/b] and the ongoing war on democracy[/url]

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13053][color=red][b]NATO, must be Disbanded for Contributing to the Scourge of War, and For Defying Peremptory Norms[/b][/color][/url]

Thu, 2009-04-09 12:24

#45

thanks

Fidel, for a long time leftists in this hemisphere have chosen only to look at the crimes perpetuated in this hemisphere. and those crimes are vast.

however, this is no reason to ignore crimes committed on other continents. and there are many. This situation in Burma is appalling, massacred peoples, orphaned young, a rampage of regional and distant aggressors anxious for petrofuel, routes, and other resources. and there are other current examples which have been elucidated elsewhere.

People today around the world know the fact that no big powers are innocent of horrendous crimes. it's time the left admit that.

it's time the left start aligning it's messaging with reality.

Thu, 2009-04-09 12:41

#46

Fidel

The reality is that the Reagan administration promised the Soviets that if German reunification took place, NATO would cease expansion into Eastern Europe and Asia.

The reality is that there still exist anywhere from 700 to more than a 1000 US military bases, troop occupations, and communications installations for military purposes outside of the USA.

The USA is still spending more on military than the next ten countries combined.

In a bygone era when the sun never set on the British empire, that country's imperials spent just twice what their next two largest military rivals allocated to war.

NATO is allegedly still there in Europe to protect Europeans from a cold war threat that doesnt exist anymore.

The USA's is the only military with nuclear weapons stationed on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas.

And it looks as if Obama's administration is filled with cold war hawks same as before. The infamous School of the Americas remains open for business as usual.

In spite of the end of the cold war and dissolution of the USSR, war and great suffering reign merrily.

Thu, 2009-04-09 13:37

#47

Frmrsldr

Also, go back to the Cold War and do an internet comparison of all the wars, insurgencies and political meddling in other countries the CIA was (still is) involved in versus the number of instances the U.S.S.R.'s KGB was involved in. There is a vast difference.

Thu, 2009-04-09 18:55

#48

thanks

there was a lot of meddling by a number of parties during the cold war. denial isn't the purpose of the thread title.

at present, there is a imbalance of power, militarily, but financially all the big powers are dependent upon eachother.

here's a specific item which gives a sense of the kind of relationship you may be trying to describe, vis a vis NATO and Russia.

it does give a sense that the Harper and NATO rhetoric about the danger of Russia is a lot of hot air.

"What is the US-Russia HEU agreement?

HEU stands for highly enriched uranium. In 1993, the US and Russia entered into an agreement whereby the Russians would dismantle a significant portion of their nuclear weapons by 2013. This agreement is known as the US-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium agreement or the megatons-to-megawatts agreement. It stipulates the annual quantities of HEU that may be delivered to the US by Russia. The dismantled weapons contain a valuable resource for Russia. HEU can be blended down into low enriched uranium (LEU) and sold in the western world market as reactor fuel for hard currency.

There are three main components that make up LEU: natural uranium (the mine concentrates or U3O8); conversion services that convert U3O8 to UF6; and enrichment, the process of enriching UF6 to LEU. Together, U3O8 plus UF6 conversion is referred to as the natural uranium feed component of the fuel. This feed displaces primary U3O8 production and uranium conversion services.

This agreement provided a major source of new supply - the equivalent of one major mine. Since new supplies of this magnitude can be disruptive in the uranium market, Cameco placed a high priority on ensuring this material was marketed in the western world market in a disciplined fashion and sought participation in the marketing of the natural feed component.

In 1994, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) as agent for the US government, and Russia, signed an agreement whereby USEC would purchase the enrichment component of the LEU upon delivery to the US. In 1999, Cameco and two other western companies, AREVA and NUKEM, Inc. concluded an agreement with Russia whereby they have the option to purchase the majority of the natural feed component of LEU. This agreement is officially called the UF6 Feed Component Implementing Contract. In November 2001, the western companies agreed to exercise a portion of their options to bring predictability to the program - predictable supply to the western market and predictable revenue to the Russians.

As of March, 2008 325 metric tons of weapons grade HEU from the former Soviet Union has been recycled which is equivalent to eliminating 13,000 nuclear warheads."

http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/markets/

Fri, 2009-04-10 09:03

#49

thanks

Fidel, in the post above you are making assumtions about some kind of 'argument' you say i'm making.

i just thought that clip on global trade in nuclear materials was interesting for a variety of reasons. i know that corporations based here do deals with corporations based in Russia and China and other countries all the time.

so when people like Harper try to spin other countries as dangers to global peace, its completely bogus spin. Harper and Iggy are promoting the industries of fossil fuels, nukes, and NATO military toys, including ammunitions fashioned from depleted uranium which we and the US then dispense on places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

most ironic are perhaps the nuclear missiles planted on foreign soil, pointed at the supposedly scary countries we pay to get their old nukes for recycling.

not to speak of all that radioactive material being moved around the planet ad infinitum, for so-called 'peaceful nukes'. as well as the processing leakage into Lake Ontario, and groundwater, and from open cracked storage in Elliot Lake, and Saskatchewan, and airborne from mining uranium against the will of residents, and then dumping it against the will of residents elsewhere...

while meanwhile the wind blows free and clean

Fri, 2009-04-10 11:37

#50

Fidel

thanks wrote:

Fidel, in the post above you are making assumtions about some kind of 'argument' you say i'm making.

i just thought that clip on global trade in nuclear materials was interesting for a variety of reasons. i know that corporations based here do deals with corporations based in Russia and China and other countries all the time.

I think you meant to address FrmrSldr's post immediately above yours? I agree with FrmrSldr. As far as capitalists are concerned, profits precede everything else. During the cold war, the Soviets did sell weapons and raw materials to non-Soviet countries, some of which were aligned with neither of the cold war era super powers. Weapons technology was something the Soviets felt they needed to allocate precious resources toward in order to maintain an even footing with the west. And it provided them with stores of reserve currencies for trade purposes.

But since 1991 and perestroika, the Russians were convinced by Harvard and European economists and politicians that vicious cold war trade embargoes could be avoided, if Russia and satellite countries could integrate their economies with the western world. So now, besides export of raw materials and energy, Russia still has some incentive to export weapons to countries like Iran, China and India etc, as long as this colder war encirclement of Russia and China is taking place.

I dont know much about nuclear weapons or nuclear technology, but by what I've read the hypocrisy is ongoing wrt nuclear weapons proliferation, and especially in regard to technological imperialism wrt nuclear technology for the purposes of electrical power. We all know that electrical power is viewed by the UN as necessary for eliminating absolute poverty, powering water distribution and sewage systems required for modern society etc. And we can see the hypocrisy wrt the west's treatment of Iran's attempts to develop nuclear power in what is a desert country trying to wean itself from dependence on fossil fuels.

I tend to believe that one of the greatest dangers for nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists is Pakistan. That country has been run by US-backed military dictatorships for a long time. And somehow, some way, that country developed nuclear weapons capability during the 1990's. Several investigative, "non-mainstream" new reports I've read say that Pakistan had help and was passed nuclear weapons secrets by at least one high ranking military official representing a certain government. People like Canadian poet, Peter Dale Scott, have written about cold war since Viet Nam, and I think there are "deep state" politicking taking place behind the veil of democracy and government transparency around the world still today. Yes we do have our own dissident poets and writers, and their messages are sometimes muted by propaganda machinery here. The Americans suggested that the post cold war era would be a time of conspiracy theories. And I think that as long as there exist democratic deficits around the world, inlcuding here in the plutocracies of North America, there will continue to be suspicions and destabilizing acts of terrorism. And I think colder warriors are counting on it.

Fri, 2009-04-10 21:12

#51

Frmrsldr

According to the above argument, whether the political right's interest coincides with the political left when it comes to peace depends on whether multinational corporations (ie., the capitalists) can make a profit on peace - or war.

It looks to me like the right is more divided as the military industrial complex will always make a profit on war or the threat of war, whereas other industries (other capitalists) can make a profit on peace.

The people (the workers) will always get screwed in a capitalist economy.

Left and Right Against the Military Industrial Complex

Pages