Apparently one cannot submit the same comment or quote to more than one thread?  What is this?

INTIMATIONS OF THE NEXT WORLD

19.

“Clemencia es una palabra que se usa poco.”
Eliseo Alberto, CARACOL BEACH

The word, clemency,
was used by Gadafi 2
days ago when he
asked his captors if they were
familiar with the term—

just before they fired
a bullet into his brain
(or his stomach, or
his shoulder, or his elbow—
depending on whose account).

I prefer to think
he died from the collapsed dreams
that we call old age:
more of a disease than the
click of a Kalashnikov

crudely applied next
to a culvert in Sirte,
poor berber’s version
of the chase through Vienna’s
sewers after Harry Lime

in The Third Man, with
Orson Welles’ fingers reaching
up toward the street for
the escape of clemency.
On this planet of rubble

there is no mercy
for the dreamer of union
among agendas
to dominate the ant hill
in the name of human rights,

even less if the
dreamer spins his fantasies
crouched on top of huge
reserves of water and oil.
Chávez deplanes to pray thanks

for the absence of
cancerous cells; in Gallup,
New Mexico, a
Navajo man dies from life
in the uranium mines.

“NATO was reassigned to a new mission by the Clinton
Regime, transforming NATO from being the defensive
positioned force it had been into becoming a permanent
expeditionary invasion and occupation force to be used
in the planned continuum of resource wars.”

- David J. Cyr

Interesting comment.  I’ve read similar in the past. 
Recently, can’t recall where, I also read someone
speaking of Bilderburger Group in this vein.  Contrary
to the NWO hypothesis, the writer said that the BG’s
were really focused on advancing/maintaining the Angle-
American empire, and in recent times, reorganising NATO
as the force with which to do it.

“toss the election to the Republicans, and hope all hell breaks loose at a faster
pace so we can get all this over with.”

I’m not sure about that myself.  I don’t think a Republican president could have
gotten away with Obama’s empire expansion or imperialism.  I stand (self)
corrected on my earlier use of the word, hegemony! 

I realize hegemony is not synonymous with either empire or imperialism, which
is how I intended to use it.  The word thrown around a lot by Bill Moyers and
other PBS pundits for the invasion of Iraq 8 years ago was in effect, a more
polite and euphemistic word for either.  Tsk, tsk on me for my own continued
misappropriation.

At any rate, I tend to think the Democrats would have come out in force against
both Obama’s domestic and foreign travesties had a Republican committed
them.  Perhaps with a Republican president, there would be significantly more
resistance to the inevitable fall to bottom. 

It’s scary to examine what the nadir or bottom could look like. Like you, I’d
rather reach it, sooner than later.

There are important differences of style.  Style can sometimes trap people.  For instance, the Republicans now seem to primarily appeal to that part of the electorate which glories in its ignorance, so Herman Cain has to pretend not to know what or where Uzbekistan is.  However, some problems, like global warming, are apprehended only through rather elaborate knowledge and reasoning, so a Republican president may find him- or herself bound by style not only to profess ignorance of the subject, but to promote policies which assume it does not exist, regardless of the evidence.  On the other side, the stylistic assumption of knowledge can also lead to disaster, as with ‘the brightest and best’ and Vietnam.

As Anarcissie said in the first comment here: “I don’t see how it’s better to have a liberal president”

Is there any difference?
Any difference between these putative “liberals” and “conservatives”?
...other than the little badges they wear that say “Republican” or “Democrat”?

It was a very “liberal” president Lyndon Johnson who escalated the war in Vietnam.
It’s been a very “liberal” president who chose to continue the occupation of Iraq (which is hardly over, in spite of what hollow words are spoken at press conferences).
It’s been a very “liberal” president who is still prosecuting military campaign in Afghanistan.
That same “liberal” president just last week sent “advisers” into Africa.

I’m sorry… I fail to see any distinction between the “liberals” and “conservatives”, and certainly see none between “Democrats” or “Republicans”.

That so many insist on clinging onto some illusion that there is some “difference” between the two is truly sad.

I’m beginning to like Mr. Cyr’s and ardee’s positions more each day: vote for the “green” party lady with the gray hair, toss the election to the Republicans, and hope all hell breaks loose at a faster pace so we can get all this over with.

Back on track:  “At a Loss for a World View”—
  Sad to say, my father had an enormous world view back in 1920, compared to my grand daughter’s world view in 2010.  Something happened.  What?
  Many people blame it on “public education” and I’m sure that played a part. Overcrowding, quixotic unequal funding, mediocre teacher training, community color bars, But three, four or five wars against foreign countries, plus worse conditions in foreign countries leading naturally to high immigration rates and the stresses caused by sudden unstable economic conditions - all of it worked against tolerance and undersanding.
  So now here we are, conflicted over differences while within reach of almost everybody are the greatest enablers of understanding ever invented—transportation and communication worldwide.
  No more excuses.

Inherit the Wind: You write:
“Republicans cannot STAND Democratic Presidents having successful war efforts.”

You’re right, of course. 

For the same reason, Dems show visceral opposition to conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas.

Both cases run counter to the branding.

“I’d say the business in Libya was simply an example of opportunistic
imperialism.”

I’d say it was more than that.  Hegemony has a lot to do with resource seizures. 

“It will be unnecessary to remind me that Gowans is a Marxist, Communist,
hate-America-firster, etc. etc. etc.  I think it’s useful to have another view.”

There are proactive, legitimate Communist and Socialist parties throughout
allied Europe.  Granted, the word Communist can still elicit knee jerks though
the Cold War has been over for more than 2 decades.

What were Clinton and company looking for in Bosnia?

Clinton’s ‘95 and ‘99 aerial bombings of Yugoslavia — with a resultant 4 civilians killed for every soldier targeted — was not humanitarian. It was done to provide an excuse to maintain the NATO forces, which should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union. When Clinton lied Yugoslavs died; after which Halliburton’s KBR was immediately Clinton Regime awarded a no-bid contract to build a massive new military base (Camp Bondsteel) in close proximity to the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline (a pipeline from the Black Sea through the former Yugoslavia to the Adriatic Sea, on into central Europe).

NATO was reassigned to a new mission by the Clinton Regime, transforming NATO from being the defensive positioned force it had been into becoming a permanent expeditionary invasion and occupation force to be used in the planned continuum of resource wars.

The planning for the Long War actually began during the nice smiley faced Jimmy Carter [Doctrine] Regime. The Reagan Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine both naturally evolved out of the Carter Doctrine and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s “Best and Brightest” Brain) plans.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

I’d say the business in Libya was simply an example of opportunistic imperialism; in recent years, Qaddafi had toned down his act a bit, but he was still considered a loose cannon, so the great leaders of Europe, especially Sarkozy, decided to take him out under the cover of ‘liberating’ Libya on the theory that he might be replaced by a more compliant government.  For another view of Libya than what you’ll get in the boss media, see Gaddafi’s Oppressions by Stephen Gowans.  It will be unnecessary to remind me that Gowans is a Marxist, Communist, hate-America-firster, etc. etc. etc.  I think it’s useful to have another view.

I have never figured out what Clinton and company were looking for in Bosnia.  Some Western groups with the means to do so started the breakup of Yugoslavia by sending a lot of armaments to Croatia, and the U.S. supported the cleansing of Serbs from there, which guaranteed a civil war in Bosnia (still unsettled).  I suppose they considered any resistance to capitalism intolerable; Serbia was supposed to be ‘socialist’ in those days.  But possibly things could have been managed more cleverly, with less death and destruction.  Had anyone cared.

QUOTE: (of an anonymous avatar wishing future generations to inherit just a fart):

“Republicans cannot STAND Democratic Presidents having successful war efforts.”
_____________________

Yes, (D) corporate party liberals can claim “Mission Accomplished” now, in Iraq, after 21 continuous fucking years of collective punishment of all the Iraqi people… just because one formerly favored sand thug considered valuing oil in something other than dollars.

Was the war against the people of Iraq “Bush’s” war?

Informed that UN (that is U.S. Clinton Administration) sanctions had or would cause the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, Clinton’s Field Marshal, Madeline Albright, calmly — cold-bloodedly — publicly affirmed in 1996 what her and the Clinton Administration’s position was: “The price is worth it.” The “price” that Clinton was willing to have the Iraqi people pay included the collateral damage deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children resulting from just the Clinton siege that lasted 8 years, during which Clinton patiently pounded Iraq’s defensive capabilities and degraded all its infrastructure, while wrecking its economy, in preparation for the invasion that would have eventually occurred, regardless of which fascist the corporate party had in the POTUS seat when Iraq was weakened enough and the pretext for full scale invasion could be popularly plausible enough. The “it” that the Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Obama regime wanted was a removal of just one (1) insubordinate U.S. sand thug.

The anti-draft (not antiwar) “left” posing liberals seek safer robotic efficiencies in fascism, while others still fight and die in the “necessary” and “humanitarian” resource wars Democrats keep voting for. The expendable others in liberal supported wars are children of the working poor; conservative kids; gays and lesbians; Dream Act recruited illegal aliens; NATO — any proxy — anyone other than themselves.

The corporate party’s Democrats are to democracy what war is to peace.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Republicans cannot STAND Democratic Presidents having successful war efforts.  Obama’s effort in Libya is similar to Clinton’s in the Bosnia War.  Effective, fast, no loss of American life.  This sharply contrasts with the major cluster-fucks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The former, most everyone here agrees was a totally unnecessary disaster and has cost us something like a trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives.  The latter, while many disagree on it, most agree that execution of it was criminally incompetent.  I argue that it was deliberately fucked-up because Iraq was considered more important by the jingoistic numbskulls in the Bush admin.  Thus it ended up taking ten years, instead of 2, and a trillion or more instead of 1/10 that or less, and it’s fundamentally failing when it would have succeeded.

In fact, the only flat-out failure that was initiated by a Democrat since Reagan was in Somalia, and there Clinton took the sagacious route of cutting our losses and getting the hell out!

What is interesting is how little the GOPers know or even care about economics in foreign policy, other than “beating China”.  We wouldn’t have to if it hadn’t been for their “hero”, Reagan, giving tax incentives to move manufacturing out of America and off to China.  Now they make China as “The Enemy”.  Now I don’t like many of China’s policies, particularly on their looking the other way on patent/copyright infringement and tolerating adulteration unless it embarrasses the government, but they are just doing what is best as they see it for China.  That’s their look-out. Ours is supposed to be the USA.

Yet none have a plan for increasing manufacturing that can be sold off-shore, to get our BOP at least somewhat able to reduce the trade imbalance…with EVERYONE.  All of the GOPers’ plans are: Get into office. Do EXACTLY what corporations want, and fuck over the American people to do it.

Oops!  Slipped up, there.  Thanks to David J. Cyr!

QUOTE, gerard:

“Things you won’t hear any candidate say about U.S.  policies in general”
______________

Apparently, you haven’t listened to any Green candidates.

Liberals waste elections!

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Things you won’t hear any candidate say about U.S.  policies in general
  1. No matter how much we need oil, we shouldn’t go to war for it. We should get serious about global warming.
  2. We should stop trying to push democracy and Christianity on the rest of the world.
  3. We should help the Palestinians establish an autonomous nation with Jerusalem as their capitol, sharing with Israel.
  4. We should stop selling weapons to foreign countries.
  5. We should shut down Guantanamo, rehabilitate all the prisoners we have held there and in prisons abroad, stop torture completely and make an attempt to compensate all abused prisoners. We should hold all those who approved and carried out the torture programs legally responsible according to the international laws provided for this purpose under the Geneva Conventions. We should reform our domestic prisons and the “injustice system” that supports them, and get private enterprise out of the picture.We should immediately restore habeas corpus and get rid of the death penalty.
  6. We should stop all use of bribes and threats when negotiating with foreign countries.
  7. We should “take war off the table” as a realistic tool of foreign policy, try to repair some of the damage we have wrought in Central and South America and the Middle East and Africa.
  8. We should work to make the world entirely free of nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, bunker busters, and chemical weapons,
  (Of course there’s more—but even if you look at this partial list, you see how far we are sunk in the mud of violence and blind authoritarianism and how far we have to climb to get out.
  It’s indeed discouraging, but we’ve got to climb out or the world is going to become unliveable within the lifetimee of our grandchildren if not before. 
  And by the way, the Occupiers have taken a giant step in the right direction, bless them. The Internet is also moving everybody toward more understanding and mutuality. The time has never been more auspicious.

PS—This is my short list!

“American Exceptionalism” has, from the beginning, prejudiced the too-often-undereducated American citizen in favor of ignoring to foreign affairs.
Our “culture” (as it is generally portrayed) is self-sufficient, isolated by two oceans, fully self-sufficient as to natural resources, divinely endowed with “brotherhood from sea to shining sea” etc. etc.
  Currently the image is showing signs of wear, due to evident inconsistencies between what we say and what we do,  such as more citizens unjustly in prisons than any other country. more money spent on wars, rising numbers of ill-fed, undereducated children, more environmental damage from pollution plus exploitation, and so on.
  True, we haven’t had a dictator yet—but give us time.  We’re workin’ on it, what with a surveillance machine like none other on earth, 99% sinking, 1% awash in wealth, and a government fresh out of creative ideas and credibility.

yes, gaddafi is gone; however, i venture to GUESS [at least at this time] that s’mthing
else and much worse came along in libya: reunion of god [allah] and islam.
yes, REUNION AND NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM ‘RELIGION’.
can anything worse happen to libyans than having ulema [body of mullahs] imams,
amirs, beys, deys, princes rule libya?

and i am not even thinking of such helpers like sarkozy, obama, berlusconi, clinton.

since there is not much—if any—adequate information ab syrian protesters, i
cannot tell if they also want to reinstall a ‘moderate’ islam in own country.

i do not think that OWS wants to bring on a greater unity between sacerdotal class
and god. i hope OWS wld try to reunite left and right in order to obtain just two or
three basic human rights in u.s [and world.

that’s all folks: JUST THE RIGHT TO LIFE, HEAlTHCARE, TO KNOW, wld amply suffice;
while keeping in mind: SUFFICIENT ONTO THE DAY IS THE RIGOR THEREOF.
and i leave this old chestnut deliberately undefined. TNX

“The candidates relentlessly maintain their focus on the economy because they believe it is what will decide the election.”
—ER

It IS what will decide the election, ER.
You still don’t get that??

QUOTE, of corporate party propagandist Eugene Dionne:

“The demise of Moammar Gaddafi is big news around the world… but there are lots of other countries out there”
________________

Yes, Eugene, the neoliberal OILitarian interventions have only just begun.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

I don’t see how it’s better to have a liberal president who knows where countries are if his only intention is to subjugate or kill them.