Remember boys and girls that we are commenting to the vast “tapping out”, of average americans monetary resources to the perpetual gain of the corporate hegemonous lexicon that rules over the world. We subsidise killing in the names of freedom and democracy, which obviously are nothing but euphamisms in todays politic speak.
Yes the complex is alive being fed by the helpless, who are sacrificed either physically or laboriously to a even more helpless world.

We the people are now powerless in our great security blanket. How ironic is that?! The talk is of being realistic in our world. The facts are, that we are just subjects to a fanatisism that continues to decay everything and shows no signs of conscience for anything or body who would oppose such a reality.

Thus is our political reality of today. Servitude. Pray!

Saggy, Clinton did not sell out so much “his generation” as he did sell out the working class—the base of the Democratic Party—by joining with Reagan & Bush I in ramming NAFTA through on the fast track.

Saggy, “You got that wrong too.  The Jews run the Demo party, but that’s a different group.  The Jews that created the neo-cons, starting with Bill Kristol, Sr., were Trotskyists, not Democrats.  For the definitive short paper, see .... Rise of the Judeo-Cons ....”

I was quite clear when I said that from a PARTISAN perspective, the neocons have strong origins in the Dem Party (their idols are prez Wilson and staunch Dem Senator Scoop Jackson). They broke with the Dems when Carter came in and moved over to Reagan.

I know that many go back to Trotsky, but that’s not about US Partisan pol).

No one nation during the course of the rise of the American empire has been single-handedly in as many wars. Obviously there have been wars and conflicts - let’s get beyond the foolish talk.

I’m talking about the genocide of entire indigenous nations by Europeans and those seeds sowed the way for expansionism and constant war to drive out and take control of lands in the North Americas. Not to mention the horrific history the US has had in Latin America, and beyond. This is not simply human warring, but a nation-state on the prowl, which continued to build steam under Woodrow Wilson (another Dem).

The point is that the exceptionalism, the neocolonialism, the endless military interventionism is what American history is made of. Israel is a small treachorous version but it is not the tail wagging the dog.

What went into the stew called “let’s invade Iraq” is not a singular item, but a whole mix of items which go back to the legacy that is American hegemony. Our fingerprints are all over the place when it comes to re-constituting governments and supporting killing militias.

So, were neocons in the mix when it came to Iraq? You bet. But the evil one - Richard Cheney - is hardly a neocon and he’s the guy behind this. Did he have selected neocons on his staff. You bet. But they were hired because of an overall confluence between the ideology on the right-militarist and what the neocons were bringing to the table.

No again Saggy, I’m not excluding Zionists role AND US imperialism - YOU ARE. So stop it with the simple minded games your playing.

Saggy,

You ask if I’m a “Zionist”? Hardly.

The problem is that folks who see everything through a Zionist prism miss the several centuries of American empire and what we’ve done ALL by ourselves without the help of Zionists. We can be a murderous lot without help.

I see Israel as an American beachhead that serves the empires purpose. I never deny its role nor that of AIPAC in US foreign policy particular with regards to the ME. But to ignore the scale and scope of US history and its capacity to invade and occupy sans Zionists, is to miss most of the picture. Neocons may be pushing the zionist narrative, but I don’t think they are the main players over the long haul. (Btw, as I’ve said elsewhere - neocons have their roots, from a partisan perspective, in the Democratic Party, not the Repugs).

Saggy, I guess I’m assuming you can both chew gum and walk without tripping? Holding Zionism in one hand and US hegemony in the other is doable without discarding one for the other.

I know there are those sold on the notion that Zionist run US policies. I suspect there is a family relationship, but US policies have been in place well before 1948.

I’ve shared (and anyone can google it) the endless war and conflict the US has been involved with since it’s inception. 99% has absolutely nothing to do with zionism/ists.

jenne, if and when you post something that is worthy of a repost, you can be sure you will hear from me.

Ernest, your response to my post here

•  “..There are only two possibilities.  Either Max doesn’t see it, or chooses to ignore it.  He is much too bright to actually not see it, so it would appear his refusal to acknowledge the depth of that threat reflects a level of intellectual dishonesty—perhaps itself rationalized as acceptable as the result of ideological blinders.”

I appreciate your diplomatic assessment of this, and I agree that he is much too bright NOT to actually see it. So, that really leaves only the one probability, (rather than possibility). He’s intellectually dishonest, and probably hasn’t ‘rationalized’ a damn thing. He knows Nadar can’t win, and he knows the danger of McCain winning as a result of his dangerous spew. And…HE DOES NOT CARE. That’s a sociopath..plain and simple. Nobody ever suggested that sociopaths weren’t intelligent, as they generally are.

And my guess is that Max, (like several of his cult that also post here) would experience some sort of psychologically orgasmic delight if Obama ended up losing to McCain. Since *that* isn’t going to happen, he’s most likely to be on the same jet with Cheney, enroute to Dubai.

(And I doubt if he’s likely to take his cult with him)

Cyrena wrote, “But I honestly wonder here, if the Max people are so committed to their ideological purity that they cannot SEE the threat posed by John McCain and the last blow that he would deal through the Federalist Society Justices…”

There are only two possibilities.  Either Max doesn’t see it, or chooses to ignore it.  He is much too bright to actually not see it, so it would appear his refusal to acknowledge the depth of that threat reflects a level of intellectual dishonesty—perhaps itself rationalized as acceptable as the result of ideological blinders.  Then again, there is the tendency of many ideological left who suffer from the same narrow Manichaein world view as those on the right.  You’re either for the M.I.C. or your against it.  For such individuals, it matters not how many areas one can demonstrate how many fundamental differences there are between Obama and McCain, such as Obama’s supporting a woman’s right to chose and his background as a professor of Constitutional law that would lead him to reject the appointment of Federalist Society radicals in robes bent on overturning a century of jurisprudence protecting constitutional checks and balances, workers’ rights and fundamental civil liberties vs. McCain who not only opposes a woman’s right to chose but even her right to birth control, is devoted to exacerbating the already stark inequality and whose judicial appointments would spell the end of the rule of law as we know it.

None of that matters to Max.  Obama has committed the unpardonable sin of not being either Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich when it comes to opposition to the M.I.C.  So he will not only throw away a “protest vote” on Nader, but blast every progressive who does not join in his exercise in futility.

By cann4ing, July 31 at 2:24 pm

•  “What pisses me off is people whose ideological commitment is so great that they cannot see that the threat to the very survival of constitutional democracy presented by John McCain and the Federalist Society Justices he would appoint is so great that we cannot afford the luxury of yet another exercise in futility, which is precisely what either a McKinney or Nader vote amounts to.  What pisses me off are progressives who have no room for disagreement on strategy; no respect for those who disagree with an ideologically pure line which reflects an inability to count.”

~~~
And Ernest…. it’s always gonna be this way with the Max crowd. He’ll go on and on with the same red herring rhetoric, (Obama is ‘for’ the death penalty, and ‘supports’ FISA snooping) because it just plays so well in the game of sound byte/language rhetoric. Never mind any of the real details attached to any of these positions.

But I honestly wonder here, if the Max people are so committed to their ideological purity that they cannot SEE the threat posed by John McCain and the last blow that he would deal through the Federalist Society Justices, (not to mention ALL of the same things that this crowd accuses Obama of) or if instead they don’t fucking CARE! THAT’s what I’m honestly beginning to think.

SOME of this crowd is obviously retarded, but not ALL of them are incapable of counting, despite the radical rhetoric. In other words, more than a few of the Max crowd have ADMITTED that none of their candidates stand a frog’s chance in a Louisiana swamp, and also know perfectly well that their actions will land them with a McCain administration that does spell the complete end. Obama made the same reality point to member of the Congressional Black Caucus when Diane Watson was whining about Hillary supporters needing ‘time to heal’. He said, (and I paraphrase), “Diane, you know that John McCain will make appointments to the Supreme Court and the Federal Bench that will set woman’s rights back to the stone age.” (or something similar). But, that’s certainly not ALL it would destroy.

So, after all of this time of listening to the same old rhetoric that might make us think we’re dealing with even more challenges than just the ‘ideologically committed’, (Hitler and his Nazis were equally ideologically committed) I’m thinking this crowd either actively supports the repug agenda, and John McCain as well. Or, they’re just another branch of the “Near Ender – Pushing for Armageddon” types.  Nothing else explains it, and you give them too much credit for ideological purity. It’s suicidal insanity, like any other fanatic willing to take the world out with them.

Max et al have far more in common with al-Qaeda and the Wahhabists than they do with any of the main body of the US electorate. Even the McCain supporters are supportive out of either stupidity or greed because his agenda serves their own. Max et al are simply radical extremists, quite willing to sacrifice everything for the glory that the ultimate crash promises.

Saggy you should take a broader view of US history. It’s interesting what you’ll learn.

I have no problem with Dems in Pelosi’s district voting for Sheehan as a third party candidate.  There is no risk of extending the Bush/Cheney/McSame fascist regime as a result.  But Sheehan would have done better to run against her in the Democratic primary instead of leaving the task to the little known and underfunded Shirley Golub.

Pelosi is truly a piece of work.  Her latest absurd statement was to state that impeachment is off the table because she hasn’t seen any evidence that Bush/Cheney committed any crimes!  Perhaps that’s because she has her head so far up Bush’s a$$ that she can’t tell where he ends and she begins.

The reason you’re so “pissed off” Ernest is because logical has failed you. It’s not “strategy” to put Obama in and assume you’re going to infiltrate. That talk has been going on for ever, its an urban myth. (It’s funny I wasn’t even responding to you.)

But don’t take it too personally. I actually find most of your posts aok.

Dems got in in 2006. We’re still in Iraq, fully funded. And what’s Obama talking trash about more war, the good war? God he’s for the death penalty (how civilized!), and then FISA (a little snooping never hurt anybody!), he’s in bed with the most wretched economic and foreign affair types… a litte little oil, a little nukes (what’s the difference?), increase the military (not as much a mad-dog McCain, so that’s got to count for something…no?) None of this bothers you? You should be pissed at THAT!

You’re not going to reinvent this system from the inside. It’s like gravity, it don’t work that way.

But, hey, you’re more than welcome to play strategic games if you think it gets you somewhere.

Would be great if Cindy Sheehan won….ooops she isn’t a Dem. Left the party to get rid of Nancy (impeachment off the table) Pelosi. (And now NP says it’s too late to impeach…that’s the Dem version of a pock in the eye…)

Yea now that’s one lady to be really pissed at, I mean really….

Saggy,

Corporations have been an integral part of US foreign policy and interventionism - should see what’s been going on with Chita banana south of the border where thousands have been murdered to protect Chita’s stake in low costs labor, etc.

That’s one of literally thousands of examples of how Corporations wield power directly and indirectly. As a general rule they do not tell the government to go to war. That’s a ridiculous notion I’m certainly not making it.

So, you’re argument is weak because the relationship between corporations, particularly as that plays out in defense spending, and resource hegemony is a mixed bag. But to be sure they are in the thick of it.

Maybe your argument is that we are not in Iraq to protect oil sources? I think we are not only for US needs but for strategic needs - to control hot points on the map.

We are in Iraq for the same reasons we’ve been going to war decade after decade regardless of party. The MIC enables and influences the kinds of business (war) that will make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. Ideologues do it for their own reasons. Some presidents do it to prove they’ve got what it takes to be CIC (I see that in Obama, kind of like Clinton and GWB). You know you can’t be a real CIC unless you got a little war going.

But for the most part it’s because we have a preditory economic system that bankrolls the largest military industrial complex humankind has ever seen.

And Obama is part of it. Believe it.

Saying your going to “try” to change this through symbolism is a joke…be careful you know what happens when you mess with the mob. Symbolism! LOL

What pisses me off, Max, are the idiots who cannot see that the most practical way for achieving meaningful change is to capture first the Democratic Party and then the nation through the PDA.  What pisses me off is people whose ideological commitment is so great that they cannot see that the threat to the very survival of constitutional democracy presented by John McCain and the Federalist Society Justices he would appoint is so great that we cannot afford the luxury of yet another exercise in futility, which is precisely what either a McKinney or Nader vote amounts to.  What pisses me off are progressives who have no room for disagreement on strategy; no respect for those who disagree with an ideologically pure line which reflects an inability to count.  What pisses me off is the dishonesty in the refusal by one-dimensional ideologues to recognize the fundamental differences between McCain and Obama on such important issues as the rule of law, labor law, and the environment.

I really didn’t want to repeat our circular argument.  It reminds me of the feud between the Menshiviks and Bolsheviks.  Pointless!  But since you insist on touting your ideological purity, I couldn’t resist.

Saggy,

I’m sure you know who Paul Craig Roberts is. He worked in the Reagan administration. That’s fine, he’s written some good stuff on the economy.

I read the article some time ago and found it a very poor reason to vote for war. Yes, that’s what it comes down to.

As far as the government, it’s been owned by corporate money for decades regardless of party. Symbolism isn’t going to change that one iota. Scheer speaks to this in his recent TD article regarding who Obama is in bed with.

That someone finds solace in this “symbolism” is just beyond any kind of intellectual honesty. Only if you buy into the campaign rhetoric that McCain is Hitler/Stalin and the Devil incarnate can you see anything meaningful in this faux reason to vote for Obama.

What pisses me off is not the right - or the centrists (whatever the hell that is), it’s the “progressives” who think the Dem party is salvagable and that 2006 means we just need to try harder and get more Dems in. (By the by there is a large and growing number of progressives who are not buying this shit.)

Do you know how many of those Dems are hawks and Bush enablers? The Dems have taken this country to war more time than the Repugs.

To say you want peace, and have a clear understanding of what it means to drop bombs on innocent civilians; and knowing that that is what the war on terror is all about….and then to say, but for the sake of “symbolism” vote for warmonger number II, he won’t do any more damage to the constitution than has already been done. The horse has left the barn, Saggy.

I’m just saying let’s call it like it is and forget about O being the lesser of Mc because the children who are burned to a crisp by US gases and bombs under Commander In Chief Obama really won’t give a f&ck;...believe me!

Actually, Max, Obama shot a college-range three pointer.  Swish!

By cann4ing, July 31 at 8:43 am #

In part my response was to Saggy, but you just can’t write the kind of scathing commentary you wrote and pretend that Obama’s position on the very thing you argue vehemently against: the Orwellian “war on terror” is not precisely what he is pushing.

That my friend is not choice. Perhaps you can call it “rationalization”. And Keith Obermann has been doing the same thing - having been a sportscaster I think he likes Obama’s lay up shot or some foolish “jock thing???”

Max, you and I have hashed out the Obama vs. Nader scenario repeatedly.  While I have repeatedly acknowledged that there many areas in which I am less than pleased with Obama, I, like many other progressives, have the ability to count and believe that, given the risks that would come with a McCain presidency are so great, that the only pragmatic option is to vote for Obama—who was my third choice, behind Kucinich and Edwards.  You disagree.

Let’s leave it at that.

Ernest you know I agree with what you’ve posted, but the elephant in the room is Obama.

I haven’t the foggest idea what Saggy is talking about, Obama is not anti-war; he’s pro-war, he just doesn’t think the one in Iraq was the best idea and has no intention of leaving (the bases will stay occupied as well as some thousands of troops and even combat troops could be there much longer, except for the war he wants to in Afghanistan on…..TERROR in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Let’s be honest. He’s talking war. The thousands of civilians dying in Afghanistan today will increase as US troops (perhaps with NATO) continue to bomb the hell out of that country.

And we do it because WE CAN and because WE THINK that an Afghan child is not worth that of an American child. And Obama has shown no conpunction to pull this notion of war on terror on its head once and for all.

Political move? No it’s a cowardice move that illustrates precisely what Nader said, that the more you acquiesce to the militarist and corporate elite and MIC the more you become it regardless of anything the “anti-war” folks want to believe.

Saggy is a perfect example - Kucinich and Gravel are gone, so bend over and like it because that’s what we’re giving you. It’s like Thatcher’s There Is No Alternative - LIKE hell there isn’t…!!!

Actually, Issywise, your earlier post on Switzerland pertained to NATO countries defending it.  NATO was not created until after WW II.  So your discussion of whether Switzerland might eventually have found itself a target of the Nazis had they prevailed in WW II is off the mark.  No NATO country was ever called upon to protect that nation’s borders.

Second, I am not a total pacifist.  WW II was a war of necessity because Hitler was bent on world conquest, just as today’s neocons in the U.S. are bent on world conquest.

But let’s examine recent history.  Iraq, which was provided U.S. arms and intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, did invade Kuwait—an event that occurred after Geo. H.W. Bush’s Ambassador, April Glaspie, hinted to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would be indifferent to how Iraq settled its dispute with Kuwait.  Iraq was then demolished during Gulf War I and thirteen years of U.N. economic sanctions which resulted in the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 and an ongoing aerial assault by US/UK forces in the so-called “no-fly zones.”

By the time George W. Bush ordered the invasion of that sovereign nation in 2003, Iraq was but a shadow of its former self.  It had no WMD.  It was no longer a threat even to its neighbors, let alone the nation which has amassed the most powerful arsenal (conventional, nuclear & space-based) ever known to man.  (The U.S. military rolled through Iraq as swiftly as Hitler’s armies rolled through the Netherlands in order to attack France). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda, but it did possess oil—the second largest deposit in the Middle East—right behind Saudi Arabia.  (Iran has the third largest oil deposits in the Middle East).

During the Nuremberg tribunals, which were led by former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, it was said that the ultimate war crime was the initiation of a war of aggression, for all other war crimes flow from that one act.  A Nazi foreign minister was hanged for his role in the unprovoked invasion of Norway—a war of aggression.

The unprovoked invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with defending the U.S.  It was the ultimate war crime under Nuremberg Tribunal standards.

During the tribunals, Justice Jackson observed that the standards they applied for crimes against humanity would be meaningless unless they applied to all nations.  So I ask you, Issywise, what then should be the fate of George W. Bush and those in his regime responsible for initiating a war of aggression in Iraq?  Should they be investigated for crimes against humanity and brought before the bar of justice?

Canning:

If Nazi Germany had not been militarily confronted and overcome, do you think it’d have continued to exempt Switzerland from the list of dozens of nations it invaded and conquered? It was military force that prevented that Swiss subjugation–as well as Danish liberation.  Moreover, the Swiss are an extremely militarized society, even today. The German calculation was that the necessary warfare in the Swiss hills was not, for a time, worth the effort.  Swiss freedom was a military calculation.

Max Shields & Canning:

Fundamentally, I disagree with you on only one point. On all others, I agree. I too see the horrible catalogue of militarily caused horrors as fundamentally unjustified. That the United States maintains more than 700 bases outside our borders is a breathtaking fact: demonstrating that the mission of our military is by no means defensive. The money, my God, the money…. pumped into our “glorious” military is obscene. What militarization is doing to our culture and political process is destructive to the most fundamental values necessary for self-governance.

You preach to the choir, save one point–and it is one you should recognize and respect: Human nature is such that militarization has always a primary focus of any organized governing entity. Always!  Back to pre-history and ever since.

I’m not disputing the goals I share with you. But, I believe—for the time being, military force is a necessary tool.  I believe someday the human race will have learned how to resolve conflicts without the need to resort to military force. But, in today’s world, some military force must be present to: 1) ensure stability by beating back or deterring military adventurism and 2) for intervention to prevent genocides.

I think that by calming the water, judicious use of military force can help bring about the day you seek—allow firm peaceful institutions to develop.

You apparently believe the human tool of military force is inherently evil and ungovernable.  I disagree (and am not so cynical). I also think by reaching that faulty conclusion you nominalize yourselves in any process toward building a better world.

If you deny military force has ever been used to good effect, you embrace a view of human nature that is so at variance with common experience (and I would add so ignorant of history) that few will take your view seriously.

This isn’t to say that at the most fundamental level you are wrong—I too think every purpose which justified a military action in all of history could have indeed been better served with an alternative. But the right conditions had to be in place—countervailing non-military leverage, will to resolve the conflict peacefully and a wider community of interest that actively opposed resolution of the conflict by military means. This is my prescription for attaining the future you desire—build those conditions.

So long as militarized terrorists are determined to destroy the security of civilians in target communities to create conditions wherein their ideology can prosper, there is need for employment of military force—regardless of why the terrorist got the way they are.  The question isn’t were we wrong yesterday or today, but how do we change things for a better future.

Condemning military force out of hand is not constructive of a better future.

Max, “war on terror” is a propaganda device used to justify unending military expenditures and the Bush regime’s unending assault on separation of powers, the rule of law and civil liberties.  Since terror is a tactic, it can never be defeated.  As Gen. William Odom observed, there is no more prospect for winning a “war on terror” than there is for winning a war on night attacks.

Those who taken in by the “war on terror” have not simply bought into an exercise in futility, for the horrific results of these bombing campaigns will most certainly engender new generations determined to strike back.

The word “terrorist” is one of the most abused in the English language.  Governments use the word “terrorist” as a substitute for guerrilla warfare—a tactic of necessity for the weaker side, especially when confronted with the awesome arsenal of the U.S.  But all war inflicts terror on civilian populations.  When someone blows up a building, it can be described as “terrorism” irrespective of whether it is accomplished by planted explosives (Tim McVeigh), flying a plane into the building (9/11)or dropping a laser-guided bomb from 30,000 feet (Afghanistan/Iraq).

One of the most disturbing features of the phrase “war on terror” is its ability to spawn group think, where so many Americans, like our Issywise, prove incapable of so much as imagining that waging an endless, futile “war on terror” was not the only response we could have adopted after 9/11—not even a logical response to that event.

Imagine if, instead of this exercise in futility, the U.S., which had the sympathy of the entire world, had gone to U.N. & World Court, seeking international assistance to bring those responsible for this horrendous crime before the bar of justice.  Imagine the respect for the U.S. this would have engendered throughout the planet.  It is a position that I took in an op ed I wrote for my local paper several years back, triggering a backlash of letter writers suggesting I was naive.  I am pleased to report that yesterday, Keith Olbermann referenced a new Rand Corp. research paper which reached the same conclusion—that the solution is not a “war on terror” but the application of the rule of law.

Ernest,

Thanks for your, as usual, clarity. It is understanding what is behind the word “war” that is a American citizen imperative. This is the kind of passion/compassion and empathy that Chris Hedges brings to every article he writes for TD.

When ANYONE talks about going to “war” the first to die are babies, children, elderly, and women.

A “war” on “terror” is in fact the ultimate TERROR on the people like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How dare we not understand this. I can only imagine the depth of anguish, fear and horror these people suffer at our governments military hands. It is beyond words.

In the Empire’s Workshp, Greg Grandin describes (time and time again throughout Latin America tacts which were used and transported else) how the US supported killing militias threw children off of mountains as their parents watched on in helpless horror; and then those parents were sliced to pieces. It is either our military from 10,000 feet up; with the kind of massive equipment you describe or our proxies.

This must end and NO one, NO one who talks war gets my damn VOTE!

Thanks, Max, for the link, but there is one aspect of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan which most Americans find hard to even comprehend.  It entails to awesome power of some of the “conventional” weaponry and their devastating effect—one that is lost in the mere posting of a body count.

Take, for example, Dr. Caldicott’s description of the 15,000 lb. fuel air explosive (FAE), described in “The New Nuclear Danger,” which the Pentagon has given the cute little name, “Daisy Cutter.”
 
“Dropped by parachute…, they detonate just above the ground creating a wide area of devastation.  The first explosion bursts the container at a predetermined height, disbursing the fuel which mixes with the atmospheric oxygen.  The second charge then   detonates this fuel-air cloud, creating a massive blast that kills people and destroys un-reinforced buildings.  Near the ignition point people are obliterated, crushed to death with overpressures
of 427 pounds per square inch, and incinerated at temperatures of 2500 to 3000 degrees centigrade.  Another wave of low pressure—a vacuum effect—ensues.  People in the second zone…are severely burned and suffer massive internal injuries before   they die.  In the third zone, eyes are extruded from their orbits,  lungs and eardrums rupture, and severe concussion ensues….  Up to 200 civilians died 20 miles away from the cave complex in…Tora Bora when U.S. planes attacked.  They suffered blast trauma—ruptured lungs, blindness, arms and hands blown off, almost certainly from FAEs.”

Keep in mind that this awesome violence was unleashed on a relatively primitive nation—one with no air force; no means to fight back.  War connotes battles between two opposing forces.  What we saw in the outset of Gulf Wars I & II, depicted as light shows, was a form of aerial slaughter; butchery as opposed to warfare.

Thank you Max Shield and cann4ing for having the patience and compassion to respond intelligently to the mind numbing drivel that would only be called intelligence at some military industrial War College. Thank you both.

Issywise,

Take a look at this cataloging of the Afghan civilians killed by US military. This is what happens when the US invades, occupies and otherwise murders human beings, flesh and blood men, women and children.

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

This is the “good war” according to Time magazine and Obama.

With all due respect, Izzywise, the level of ignorance reflected in your response to Max Shields is nothing less than mind-numbing.  Please explain when troops from “any” NATO country had to defend the borders of Switzerland. 

You typify what has occurred as the result of Orwellian newspeak in which all expenditures for war, no matter how offensive minded, each and every one of the sovereign nations invaded by the imperial forces of the U.S. over the past sixty years, space-based weaponry designed to effectuate precision killing anywhere on the planet and overkill in a nuclear arsenal capable of ending all life on the planet many times over is always for “defense”—never for offense; for conquest.

Per the Pentagon’s 2005 Base Status Report, the U.S. occupies some 757 military bases in other people’s countries—and as Chalmers Johnson astutely notes in “Nemesis” this number is vastly understated as it fails to include a number of bases like the one maintained by KBR in Kosovo.  Can you name a single base inside the United States that is operated by a foreign nation?  If not, does this dichotomy tell you anything about the offensive nature of the U.S. of A, a nation that spends more on military weapons than the rest of the world combined?

If ours were really a “defense” department, why any bases oversees.  Those bases do not serve the interest of ordinary Americans.  They are their to protect the interests of the investor class which long ago betrayed this nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in search of cheap foreign labor to the destruction of American labor.  Members of the military in Iraq have not “died for their country.”  They died to insure the bottom line of the oil cartel, the military industrial complex, KBR, Blackwater and the other war profiteers.

thebeerdoctor,

You say, “....this is the last time I bother to respond to you.”

I might feel offended, had you bothered to respond to any of my post here. Name calling is reaction, not response. Responding requires reading, understanding and seriously considering.

You choose what you choose to think.

Give it up Izzywise. if you think that posters like myself or Max, are going to buy into your nonsense, forget about it. Cyrena tried to help you here, but like some verbal masochist, you persist!
Funny thing, another great poster of Truthdig, conservative yankee and myself got embroiled with a Nazi sympathizer named Saggy. Guess what? Both C.Y. and myself were accused by Saggy of being Zionists. So please don’t play that Nazi nonsense with me. I have plenty of friends from the chosen people, who recognize that my complaints have nothing to do with religion, but rather my concern for human justice. Preach your equivocating militarism all you want, this is the last time I bother to respond to you.

thebeerdoctor, July 30 at 11:59 am #

—-“Face it Izzywise, you believe that violence and armed conflict are solutions to problems.”

Face it beerdoctor, those who face aggression by the armed and who face it without the means to resist end up being oppressed.  Do you doubt that? Do you deny that history isn’t a long proof of that? Where there ever been peace it was because 1) There was a dominant power who could impose it on all or 2) there was balance of power, or 3) a community with the military means imposed it.

In no case did a vacuum exist where military power was not available to be exercised. Even in pre-historic hunter gatherer times warfare existed. Even when the excess production of food allowed agriculture societies to organize group activities, the among the first groups created were warriors.

Do you claim to know of a wonderous Archadian epoch that really existed when there was no warfare?

If we do reach a time where armed conflict is not present it will not be because we’ve fallen below what John Keegan calls the military threshold (the ability of the state impose peaceful behavior through its exclusive possession of the means to impose coercive power), but because we’ve collectivized it and built strong international networks of both force and attitudinal preparedness to deter use of force by threat of force. You wish us to be without both of the prerequisites for that achievement. 

I don’t “believe” that violence is anything good. I just don’t shut my eyes and pretend that by clicking my heals and whispering the words Utopia, we can all get there.

Max Shields

—-“Does Switzerland or Denmark go off to war? Who does on a regular basis?

No, they enjoy relative peace and prosperity because other powers defend and defended their freedom and peace.  Had not the US set up NATO to forestall and contain Soviet expansionism, they’d both be communist today—that is the masses would be ruled by a totalitarian elite. Back the calender up five years and apply your medicine and they’d both be subject to Nazi Germany’s oppressions. Their peace and security today was achieved by employment of military force and is, in fact, maintained by military force today. Without the checks on adventurism that military force imposes, Europe would be in turmoil today. Some nut would be overturning the apple cart.

Nor do either of these states participate in ending the genocides that you dismiss as real justification for existence of military power. I’ve suggested forestalling genocide as a justification for the maintenance of military force and another justification beside: ensuring stability by thwarting or deterring military aggression.

I want a disarmed world as much as you do, but I see two groups of Americans in the way: the frothing chest beating America is John Wayne group on one side and the daisy waving “all force is bad force” guys on the other.  I hold your side to be more admirable, but just as unrealistic as the John Wayners.

Security and peace cannot, in the long run, be built on military power alone. Disproportionate institutionalization of militarism in any society is a bad thing. But, security and peace will not emerge as a standard worldwide experience without recognition that human nature, for the foreseeable future, requires the just use of military power to quell adventurism and prevent mass victimization.

Your supposed “moralism” can’t survive in the real world. Fuzzy notions of what could be ain’t good enough. Today, our taxpayers are buying a massive war machine and they won’t turn away from doing so because you two guys are possessed of self-supposed superiority. As soon as you open your mouth and ejaculate your moralistic condemnation of the young people in harms way believed by a majority of Americans to be defending their own personal peace and security, you’ve lost all chance to change minds.  And you should.

Face it Izzywise, you believe that violence and armed conflict are solutions to problems. Unfortunately for you, you are on a web site where many members perceive that is sheer folly and part of a hideous 20th century where more human beings were slaughtered than any other. That old school mentality, that you call reality, only seeks to enslave yet another generation of humankind in an endless cycle of violence and paranoia, aggravated by pseudo-religious and venal concerns.
You can use all the name calling and clever arguments to advocate that position. It does not matter. Survival of ALL the human race takes precedent over any violent indulgences.

“If we are unilaterally disarmed, since we are talking about armed conflicts, what participation in the resolution of conflicts do you suppose we can take?”

I indicated in my first post that disarmament is multilateral. Many nations have actually given up their nuclear arms. The US has thousands of time more nuke warheads than any other country (only Russia comes close and their significantly behind.)

But it is more than nukes. If the US wants to play a leadership role that IT/WE need to take the lead but work through a world agreement.

The military is not a “good thing”, let’s put it that way. There is a major difference between a rational need for security and an irrational leveraging of that “need” to promulgate anything approximating a MIC. It’s like the mis-use of sweetners in food. Humans evolved through a basic need to store fats through food shortages. Our industrialized food industry has used that basic need to create “food” consumerism to the level of obesity the likes of which the world has never seen before. The MIC mirrors that same exploitation of the basic need for human security. It has actually created an unsecure world.

In the world of cybernetics it’s called positive reinforcement. That’s when we keep upping the ante which if allowed leads to total destruction. The only way to correct this is to

...roll back our military and do it in away that reduces threats and actually increases security.

Does Switzerland or Denmark go off to war? Who does on a regular basis? As Napolean said, “You don’t build bayonets to sit on them.”

Max Shield:

I’m sorry. I did you a disservice. You did make some proposals. They are,

“Disarmament is the beginning. Understand the root causes of conflict, alter or preditory economic system and transition of cultural dependency of might over right. It not only can be done, it must be done if this short lived specious is to continue to occupy the planet.”

If we are unilaterally disarmed, since we are talking about armed conflicts, what participation in the resolution of conflicts do you suppose we can take?

Do you suppose all or most of the armed conflicts in the world today are a consequence of OUR predatory economic system? If it is not OUR predations that are behind some of the conflicts, how does OUR disarming serve to prevent the other conflicts from continuing and, since insecurity tends to draw in rather than dispel until overcome by benign coercive force, what keeps these conflict from becoming a threat to our shores?

I actually agree with much of what you said, but I think it is a partial analysis. We do need to de-link foreign policy from accountability to private sector investment concerns. That has to be done both attitudinally and programmatically. The level of wealth we dump into war making at a time when we enjoy the greatest military preponderance in history is absurd, reckless, appalling and creates the self-fulfilling prophesy for use of the military that I think you and I both assume is the only possible result.

But telling me or the American public that the military is inherently a bad thing isn’t going to convince either of us. We know better. Evil as Bush -Cheney may be believed to be, there is going to continue to be a military after them.

You can speak of our species, but if you want to do something creative, you’ve got to address it to whom is within your reach and those folks are Americans.

Max Shield:

You say:  “Neither Bosnia nor Sudan are simple stories and it is a tragic simplification to think that American military intervention has brought about anything but death and deep sorrow.”

I think you are the cynic here. You suppose no good has ever come of an American military intervention. What of World War I and II? What of the Union suppression of the Confederacy? What of the American Revolution?

Sure, the end effect of all of these military conflicts would have been better obtained through peaceful means, but since that was not possible should we just have stood tall and said, “We are above that” and left the chips to fall where they may?

I suppose all of the victims spared inclusion in the genocides in Bosnia and Darfur would disagree with you. In both cases, local forces were used to confront and destroy the armed forces of genocide piecemeal. When any large force conducting genocides showed above ground, they were destroyed from the air by American military—on your behalf. The Serbians did not agree to cease their genocidal behavior until American cruise missiles started pouring down on their infrastructure. Without American will and might, there is no reason to suppose those genocides wouldn’t have been continued until complete.

I don’t say this as justification for all uses of military force—just to suggest that your black and white morality about the issue isn’t so black and white in its effect in the real world.

I can accept all of your goals, but you’ll never get there from here by indefinite means.  OK, let’s condemn American militarism as a bad thing? What’s next? Stand above it all, snearing at the inferior morality of the military personnel in harms way trying to bring stability to the Balkans or the Sudan?  I think that only moves you further from your admirable goal. 

Madison said: if men were angels there would be no need for government.  Just faulting everybody for not being angels and feeling superior to them doesn’t accomplish anything except some personal self-congratulation.

What’s your program for eliminating our war machine and how does it avoid resulting in our own subordination by alien force? How do we get other responsible powers to get off their hands and do something? My God, the Bosnian genocide was in Europe itself and they couldn’t do anything until we took up the hard part of the job.

Or do you suppose that if America one day just announced it was dismantling its war machine that strife around the world would cease to victimize and, in the end, return to our own shores?

You speak of high goals. How do you achieve them, aside from hoping that everybody turns into an angel at the same time?  It’s a coincidence that I wouldn’t plan on.

I can accept all of your diagnosis of the problem, but fail to see how you offer any prescriptive means for solving it.

I again charge you with not expressing whatever program you might conceive in a realistic manner. Nothing is going to happen so long as the critics of the MIC just sit on the sidelines carping about the failed morality of the rest of us.

Thank you Max Shields for nailing down what the problem truly is. Your comments about the role of resources is very well said. Your intelligent post illuminates what Joseph Conrad meant when he said: “It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind—”. Thank you again.

By Issywise, July 30 at 8:40 am #

Our disagreement is not trivial. And it is there that I speak of cynicism; a dark cynicism that while not intended has a horrible imperialistic history that we inherited through our Eurpean forbearers and perpetuated through the Monroe Doctrine among other guiding prinicples.

But the disagreement is around human nature and understanding what causes conflict and war.

I do not think that war is a natural state for humans. The world is filled with examples of peaceful existences. Our cause for war is really at the root of the issue. I have, as have others, contended, that conflicts and war are based on access to resources. In it’s most simplest form it is the access to water and land. As human societies have become built and become dependent on many other resources it has led to hegemony of whole regions of the world. Some of this has bled into areas which have indirect connections to that hegemony. So, the Brezinski chess-game which is really an extention over the access of resources and who has/who doesn’t. Ideology is wrapped up in this as well.

You’ll have to educate me on the “genocide” in Darfur and how US military bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan has “stopped it”. First, I disagree with the assertion that genocide is the proper way to frame Darfur and would strongly argue that it fits right into the resource conflict I described. My reports from the UN indicates that the conflict in Sudan continues. It also has indicated that it is not proper to define it as a genocide (what Israel is doing in Gaza would be a more proper use of that legal term).

As to Bosnia, it burned for a long time after the US/NATO air-raids ceased. Do you have any idea how much “collateral damage” was created by US/NATO air-raids? Since Bosnia and Darfur are discrete with different histories and the outcomes are based on an American version of the history, I don’t think we can load this onto a single DV thread.

But our difference is MAJOR. Interventionism has always been an imperialistic tool. The Brits talked endlessly about the “white man’s burden” and humanitarian interventionism. It portends a superior and dominant position which knows “right” as opposed to the indigenous people who are lesser civilized, lower in their capacity to understand and know “right”.

That makes interventionism a horrific tool which has been used by the West and most recently the US. It’s underpinnings is not humanitarianism but actually a kind of racism. No good comes out of it.

Neither Bosnia nor Sudan are simple stories and it is a tragic simplification to think that American military intervention has brought about anything but death and deep sorrow.

Disarmament is the beginning. Understand the root causes of conflict, alter or preditory economic system and transition of cultural dependency of might over right. It not only can be done, it must be done if this short lived specious is to continue to occupy the planet.

Max Shields

I agree with about everything you say and would point to Britain in the post World War One period as a template for pulling the teeth from our own military tiger. No matter what world development came up, the British public had been taught by WWI that the cost of empire was too high and so from 1919 until 1938 the military machine and the imperial administration were inhibited and dismembered.

We could do the same thing here. Even an American Winston Churchill couldn’t resist the trend if the public made up its mind that the damn MIC had to be contained.  I go further and say that unless that happens, eventually, we will go over a tipping point where even maintaining the forms of democratic governance will be dispensed with unless we turn back the concentration of power now ongoing with the help of both parties. This year we learned we’d accept voiding of millions of votes by party committees.

Where you and I disagree is on the possibility of a total demilitarization. You call me cynical, but I call it mere realism and acquaintance with history to say that somebody’s military will dominate—either a collective somebody or aggressive ind