Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama and John McCain continue to argue about war. McCain says to keep the troops in Iraq until we "win" and supports sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama says to withdraw some (not all) troops from Iraq and send them to fight and "win" in Afghanistan.
For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one "wins" in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children?
Did we "win" by going to war in Korea? The result was a stalemate, leaving things as they were before with a dictatorship in South Korea and a dictatorship in North Korea. Still, more than 2 million people -- mostly civilians -- died, the United States dropped napalm on children, and 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives.
Did we "win" in Vietnam? We were forced to withdraw, but only after 2 million Vietnamese died, again mostly civilians, again leaving children burned or armless or legless, and 58,000 American soldiers dead.
Did we win in the first Gulf War? Not really. Yes, we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, with only a few hundred US casualties, but perhaps 100,000 Iraqis died. And the consequences were deadly for the United States: Saddam was still in power, which led the United States to enforce economic sanctions. That move led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to UN officials, and set the stage for another war.
In Afghanistan, the United States declared "victory" over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce "victory"? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?
The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.
Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a "war on terror."
Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.
Yes, Al Qaeda -- a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics -- was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. "We had to do something," you heard people say.
Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 -- exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.
Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: "He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner." The doctor attending him said: "The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?"
We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?
Howard Zinn is author of "A People's History of the United States."
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
155 Comments so far
Show AllObama: Redefining Politics or Redefining Slime?
You may wanna check out this article:
http://www.asianweek.com/2008/07/24/obama-redefining-politics-or-redefin...
Daniel David Said: "I know Obama is not perfect. But I do believe he will be much more free to discuss rationally the wishes of us lefties when he is not subject to being eaten for GOP lunch in an election"
He's not going to discuss anything with the 'lefties' Daniel. You're kidding yourself. Obama will listen to AIPAC and Corporate money. As well, even if he is elected president, he'll have the GOP doing their dirty-business on him all the way through. He'll never get away from that. Therefore, it's naive to think that he's suddenly going to embrace progressive ideals once elected.
WAS IT PROGRESSIVE to watch George W Bush elected because we fell for the DIS-HYPE about Al Gore and the media-feed of how similar these candidates were as MODERATES, so (as PURISTS---let's wear the label) we did not care particularly how that vote went, perhaps we were also in SHOCK AND FATIGUE over the gingrich/whitewater/impeachment/policy-disappointment fun of the CLINTON ERA !?(as others have, I'll temporarily use the label era, for how long ago in history it seems now), so the SHOCK DOCTRINE tactics were being employed then without our AWARENESS, thank you naomi klein and others for making us more aware now. DOES OBAMA have to tread middle ground to have a shot at the presidency, and does that mean we are taken in by the whole political campaign game? Why cannot we do both progressive party building and "PRAGMATIC" (IS IT ??--always a LEGITIMATE QUESTION) voting. IF WE HAD ELECTED al gore, 9/11 would never have come about (cf richard clarke's and others' testimony, genuine alarm about intelligence subversion). WITH SUFFICIENT CONGRESSSIONAL PRESENCE we would not have had the dictatorial presidency nor the triumvirate of evil. so perhaps FOR NOW we need to COMBINE LOCAL progressive POWER building and presidential election pragmatic voting. All strategies, all candidates, all human eneavors are flawed. But LIFE IS GREAT, IF WE DON'T TIRE OF THE STRUGGLE.
As always, interesting comments by the CD faithful. RichM, I've always admired your logic and I think I have only disagreed with your astute observations once or twice, since CD started the comments section.
On this occasion, Starofthesea makes valid points and I agree with her. EVERYTHING revolves around 9/11, starting with the un-Constitutional Patriot Act and everything since then. Rich, you know as well as I do that Congress doesn't get it's act together on anything pertaining to House or Senate Bills which take so long to formulate, but the 300-plus pages of 'The Patriot Act' were in place within two months of 9/11. Coincidental or something else?
"War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. Not just a singular craft or trade, war is the primary human occupation as all other trades are contained in war."
From a happy little book called Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy
Great post, H2O. I especially liked you pointing out that we have no right to call Democrats spineless when so many vote for evil out of fear.
And, yeah, the reason so many of us are "stuck" on 9-11 is because, to this day, 9-11 is used by the neocons to push their vicious, sick agenda. And it works. Because Americans have been conditioned, like Pavlov's dogs, to respond to that phrase.
I believe that if we can wake Americans up to the reality of 9-11, we will have a better chance of reaching them with our message of peace and hope.
Tailcap--I have seen Loose Change and I have read all of David Ray Giffin's books.
Two books I would recommend is Webster Tarpley's "911 Synthetic Terror--Made in USA" and Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon."
wsws,
I like your postings very much and I would like to elaborate on the critique of the "safe-state" strategy. To me it is fatally flawed because it sends a clear message to the Dems, e.g. that when push comes to shove "we will do nothing to endanger your victory, no matter what your platform is." Once the Dems get that message, and they are quite sure they have it now, they are free to ignore us completely and they are and they will. To me, it is rather pitiful that folks give so many kudos to Obama for "allowing" protest on his web site while thumbing his nose at the substance of that protest. While not quite so blatant, it is none the less the equivalent of Cheney's "So?"
For all the condemnation of the Hillary supporters who threaten to support McCain, Obama is, apparently, paying attention. Unlike the support of the left, it appears that Obama may just be a bit afraid that he might actually lose Hillary supporters unless he meets some particular demands, whatever they may be. Unlike, apparently, too many on the left, those Hill fans have some credibility.
I am continually puzzled by those who don't seem to understand that without actually and CREDIBLY threatening the Dems with a loss, they WILL NOT take a stand that threatens their corp. piggy banks. Is that what the Progressive movement has come to - a group of people who, no matter how intelligent or well informed or rational or compassionate or etc.,etc., will not, after all the blood, sweat, tears and ink that has been shed in the name of their cause, take that last step, without which all the previous steps don't amount to a hill of beans - and just say NO! We seem to be amazingly stubborn in refusing to learn what the Right has learned, what apparently the Hill supporters have learned and what any movement that has ever succeeded has learned. To whit: "Power concedes nothing without a Demand" - not a "hope" but a demand. And no demand is taken seriously unless those making the demand demonstrate serious consequences for failure to meet it. The sad part of it is, if we had credibly threatened 12, 8, or even 4 years ago, we might have gotten a decent candidate this time, but now we have so obviously been so toothless for so long that we must do more than threaten - we must deny the vote. If that means 4 years of McCain, so be it because guess what folks, even if Obama wins, we lose. And we will be having this same discussion all over again. The longer it takes to make it clear that not only will we not be silent, but we will NOT BE MOVED, the longer it will take to get what we need, and time, for so many things, is running out.
I am so weary of those who claim that those of us who make this argument are "purists". When this self proclaimed hope of mankind throws one principle, one cause after another under the bus in his quest to get elected, this "purist" taunt becomes none other than advocacy for another Pyrrhic victory. How can we convince others not in the choir of the validity of our beliefs when, apparently, we can't even convince ourselves? We rant and rave at the "spinelessness" of the Dems. - how stiff is our own? Is it only those of the Lady Macbeth ilk who can urge "Screw your courage to the sticking place and we shall not fail."?
dustdevil July 19th, 2008 1:30 pm
-Hey have you seen Loose Change or David Ray Griffin's 9/11 The Myth and The Reality? If you haven't I recommend them.
wsws.org website July 19th, 2008 1:46 pm
If you're in a safe state, yes, by all means vote for either Nader or McKinney or anyone to the left of them.
-Excellent point and can also be used to calm down the DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) who think a vote for McKinney, Nader or 2nd party (we really only have 1 major party with two wings) means a vote for McCain.
wsws.org- "But I don't agree with it. For a third party movement to be successful, there shouldn't be restrictions placed on it..."
-I don't either, I wouldn't vote for Obama anyway even if it wasn't safe, but for DPAs the safe-state strategy might be a way to convince them to not vote for Democrats. Their lesser-evilism will be neutralized because in a safe state a vote against a Democratic doesn't help Repugs. The reason being that the vast majority of DPAs vote for their candidate and the "leftist" protest vote is small enough to not really matter except to the 2nd parties who may just pick up enough votes to help them qualify for matching funds.
soccialistmatt,
Thank you for posting the following site -- http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html
I am aware of the "safe-state strategy" that both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, among others, advocated in 2000 and 2004 and, I assume, are again advocating this year.
But I don't agree with it.
For a third party movement to be successful, there shouldn't be restrictons placed on it by, of all people, progressives.
I must say, though, that for those who *do* agree with a "safe-state strategy," note well the last pararagraph of the above-sited article by Greg Bates. Here's that paragraph by Greg Bates:
"As BusinessWeek June 14 2004 points out, 75% of voters live in safe states. Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the Democrats to the right. Meanwhile, voters in safe states have the opportunity to send a message that Kerry's platform is unacceptable, without risking throwing the election to Bush."
Meaning: If you're in a safe state, yes, by all means vote for either Nader or McKinney or anyone to the left of them. With, as Greg Bates points out, 75% of all voters in "safe states," voting for Nader or McKinney or a similar candidate will sned a powerful message to the Democratic Party leadership.
Tailcap--I did not call anyone a Republican shill and I did not say Chomsky is a paid troll.
Trolls might be paid by anyone who needs the 911 coverup to continue. It is yet to be revealed exactly who these insiders are. I have a good idea who some of them are, but we need proof. That is why a real investigation is needed.
When these trolls criticize 911 conspiracy theories, do they not realize that the governments' official version is also a conspiracy theory? The Bush administration has not been required to supply any valid proof of what they are saying.
Most of us that are demanding a real investigation have not produced any theory of what actually happened, we just know the official version is a big lie. We want the truth.
dustdevil July 19th, 2008 11:30 am
I have to suspect that many of the bloggers who protest 911 truth comments are paid trolls.
-that's silly
I believe, Noam Chomsky, whom I consider to have a brilliant mind, also doubts 9/11 conspiracy theory. I disagree with him, I consider the official government story is full of holes and it was likely an inside job to justify huge military spending and curtailing civil rights. Just because I disagree with Noam doesn't mean he's a paid troll.
Suggesting people that disagree with you are Republican shills or paid trolls is silly. The sharing of differing points of view is healthy, however calling you a dangerous, racist and fascist because you brought up 9/11 is out of line.
Your comment about 9/11 though not central to the article is legitimate in my view. I agree that 9/11 was the springboard for everything that has happened since.
I would hope it's okay for folks that generally agree to disagree once in a while, but if not, oh well, shit happens.
Starofthesea--well said!
Hearing and reading the big lie over and over again will not silence us. It only makes me want to speak out more.
Zinn did not have to word his article to support the big lie. Where he wrote, "Yes, Al Qaeda — a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics — was apparently responsible for the attacks," he could have written: "Our government and our news media says it was Al Qaeda who attacked us on 911." That would be accurate without implying that he believes the big lie.
I have to suspect that many of the bloggers who protest 911 truth comments are paid trolls. Why else would they get so upset and use words such as dangerous, racist and Fascist when those terms don't apply to what I am saying?
I am so sick and tired of hearing references to the "War in Iraq," especially here on Common Dreams, where you'd think folks would know better, that I can hardly bear to read Common Dreams any more. Please, please, please use the correct terms when referring to the travesty unfolding in Iraq. It is nothing less than THE UNLAWFUL, PREMEDIATED INVASION OF A SOVERIGN COUNTRY BY THE UNITED STATES, CAUSING THE NEEDLESS DEATH OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THAT NATION'S OIL SUPPLY!!!!! It's time we call a spade a spade and stop using the double-speak of the rogue Bush administration.
martaszabo July 18th, 2008 7:38 pm
Obama knows what war means. He is not deluded. And he is not power hungry.
-you need to lay off the Kool-aid my friend!
Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region...etc. Obama has called for increasing the military by 90,000 troops.
martaszabo: "Right now I see him winning by a landslide. .. Once we have Obama in that coveted spot, once he has some real power, then things will start to go our way. We must have a leader. And by God we've got one, someone who will stand out in history like no one in my lifetime so far will. "
Marvellous .. This sounds like excerpts from a duly modified Nicene Creed and a latter day Book of Revelations .
socialistmatt July 18th, 2008 11:28 pm
Obama will not be ABLE to avoid war with Iran.
-Bingo!
If Obama was interested in peace he wouldn't be pushing for increasing military spending. Instead he would be talking more about completely ending wars and spending the long-forgotten "peace dividend" on domestic programs that help people not help the MIC.
Meet the new boss, (darker, more eloquent, more hope, more change... but) same as the old boss!
Hey RichM
"tailcap - You must realize I'm on your side in the big picture here."
-I am absolutely positive that we are on the same side. You are one of my favorite bloggers!
Obama will not be ABLE to avoid war with Iran. The Democrats in congress are making sure of that:
http://rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=12649
Do you think JFK entered office eager to start a war in Vietnam and a botched invasion of Cuba? C'mon people. Carter is the most genuine president we've ever had for human rights and against war. Everyone remembers him as a miserable failure. That's how our system works!
Rich M----You sound like a reasonable, intelligent man and you grudgingly acknowledge the rather sizable holes in the "official" conspiracy version of 911 events. Perhaps you can also then see how convenient it has been to utilize this particular flawed version to carry out almost every damned illegal and immoral act that we lament on this forum everyday since.
So why do you resort to any sort of denigration/marginalization of 911 truth advocates and try to throw them all into a single pile that is oh so easy to dismiss?
Few of us are fanatics---I am concerned about all sorts of issues that have evolved in its aftermath. But why should those of us who have done our homework stop pointing out the ugly elephant in the middle of the living room?It's hardly what one would call a side issue. Just because you would rather focus on something else? It wouldn't come up s often as it does in this forum if government officials and supposed experts and policy makers would stop repeating that Original Lie every fricken time we turn around. THAT, my friend, is what makes us zealous. Take away the awful boogeyman called 911, and at least there is a better chance that our citizens will wake up and start feeling just alittle less trusting of what their leaders are spouting, and maybe, just maybe elect someone who actually has their real welfare and that of the entire world in mind.
I know it's a long shot, but for those of us who have done our homework and have a different "big picture" because of it, we aren't gonna shut up and sit down, or go away. OKAY????? You can call us anything you like, but it changes nothing and frankly it just makes you seem less intelligent and discerning than I think you probably are.
RichM July 18th, 2008 8:34 pm
I highly respect your point of view. I understand what you are saying. Nothing personal. And I'm not calling you a nut case either.
Hey Rich, if you haven't seen the videos I think you would find them interesting. I wish I could email you a copy but the files are probably too big.
Thank you, Thomas! :)
RichM July 18th, 2008 8:34 pm
It was Col. Mustard in the library with the candlestick.
Anyone familiar with firearms could tell you the shot that killed came from in front. Your fix for the day!
tailcap - You must realize I'm on your side in the big picture here.
But, just in case your comments about 9/11 are directed towards me (& the little spat I had with "dirtdevil" above), I'm entirely open to some of the alternative 9/11 theories (& I'm entirely convinced that the official government version is either covering up foreknowledge of the event, if not outright collaboration). I admire the work of David Ray Griffin.
But -- my problem with many members of the "9/11 Truth" cult is NOT about the quality of their theories. It's about their fanaticism, where they insist that every issue in the world must be seen as subordinate to their pet issue. It should be possible to discuss subjects like war, torture, the failings of capitalism, the mass media, the global economy, theories of democracy, & so forth, WITHOUT some 9/11 "Truther" butting in to force the discussion to be about his pet issue.
For example, in the present Zinn article -- he's making some decent points there. These points should be discussed on their own merits, with a 9-11 zealot jumping in to hijack the discussion & force it to be about that one issue.
I personally believe the CIA bumped off JFK, & that this is a very important thing, whose after-effects are visible in all the horrors we see around us today. But if I got into every single thread here, and tried to force people to discuss JFK and only JFK, and if I criticized every article that didn't give all due recognition to the importance of the 1960's assassinations, I'd quickly become a raging pain in the ass -- just like these 9-11 Truther imbeciles.
Ooooh. martaszabo.
You're about to get it from this crowd. You have my sympathy and try not to take it personally.
Honestly, I think the nut cases are the ones that believe the official government line about 9/11 uncritically. I have several videos, one is by David Ray Griffin called 9/11 The Myth and The Reality and another called Loose Change (loosechange911.com). You must watch them. I burned copies for a skeptical co-worker who laughed at me when I said I thought 9/11 was in inside job and after watching the videos he concluded that the whole thing merited re-investigating.
There seem to be two sorts of folks in our world, those who have compassion and empathy for other and the Sociopaths. The sociopaths much more easily rise to the top of any organisation, be it Corporate, Government or Church. It is the leadership of those three in co-operation with each other that insure the rest of us will have a boot on our neck all our lives. Remember the old Spanish Hacienda system, reviled because all were required to work for the Patron a month or two every year to earn his protection? We the People of the United States work well over three months every year for our 'Patron' and do not even have health care to show for our labor...THAT is extra. And just like the Patron, thugs come to beat us if we protest.
Veteran '66-68
Obama knows what war means. He is not deluded. And he is not power hungry. He brings something to this country that I'm not sure this country has ever seen -- compassion, intelligence, wit. Yes, he has to navigate the straits of politics or he will never get elected. Right now I see him winning by a landslide. Then, and only then, do I see us having a chance. Howard, this is no time to be a purist. This is the time to get elected. Once we have Obama in that coveted spot, once he has some real power, then things will start to go our way. We must have a leader. And by God we've got one, someone who will stand out in history like no one in my lifetime so far will. We should all be celebrating, not pulling on his coattails, demanding that he be spotless. Politics does not work like that. Thank god Obama seems to know that.
After all the lies by the Republican administration (935 lies on the war alone) and all the Democratic efforts to cover them up (due to their complicity) you would have to be nuts to believe anything the government says.
Labeling people "9/11 Truthers", "nut cases" and "conspiracy theorists" is not a substitute for looking at the evidence.
1. They came down like a demolition (pancake-style straight down)
2. Steel framed buildings never have collapsed like this in history due to fire
3. The third building collapsed but wasn't hit
4. The melting point of the steel ( the steel was rated above the temp at the fire)
5. One of Bush's cousins was in charge of security on the WTC
6. The buildings were cleared of people a few days before for some reason
7. All the debris (evidence) was cleared before it was investigated
8. A terrorist's passport was found identifiable and unburned
And many other things I can't remember now. Watch the videos it will be
worth it and I can assure you it will change your thinking about 9/11.
That's not "if". I hate the edit function on this site.
9/11 gave the neocons and a president with Daddy issues exactly what they needed to realize their grandiose, megelomaniacal faith-based plans.
I love Prof. Zinn. His is the voice of reason in a wilderness of ignorance. But these people didn't, don't and will never care about the body count. That's the worse case scenario.
Unfortunately, one needs imagination in order to have compassion. There is a profound, and critical, deficit in this area across party and economic lines.
This won't change soon, or easily, if ever.
What should have happened after 9/11? Something requiring more finesse than the dolts in charge could ever muster, I'll say that.
Prof. Zinn's primary point is the deaths of so many civilians. We take for granted the devices of modern warfare. We don't question it. It's all "just what happens" in war. There... minimized and dismissed.
Oh well.
I'd like to see Prof. Zinn begin to educate people about exactly what we're taking for granted: indiscriminate death from above. Bombs. Missiles. All those booms say civilian casualties are less important than military personnel or objectives.
As long as we fight wars in this way, human extinction is a matter of when... not it, or even how.
To all those progressives who do not like Obama.....work your ass off to elect him and then put pressure on him to do the right thing,hoping his intelligence and knowledge will be enough to bring about true "change"
OR
flood the streets of America and start a revolution!...That is the choice. The way things are set up, a third party coming in is about as likely as a snowball surviving in.....you know where!!!
I think the point of registering Green is to get the Green Party on the ballot in those states where you can do it that way. It's easier than trying to get 50,000 signatures.
I know you can in California. Other than that, I don't know.
If people really want to vote for a progressive Black candidate, they kind of have to vote for McKinney, because Obama is not progressive.
McKinney and the Green Party are for single payer health care.
Let me tell you about Illinois. We actually had a task force set up to study ways to deal with the health care situation. (It was voted on by Obama when he was in the State Legislature).
Excellent. So I joined a group to push for single payer-I now forget the name. Every month for 2 years I attended their meetings and everyone there wanted single payer. We organized a forum and then we all showed up at the task force hearing and all but one insurance guy spoke out for single payer.
So what happened? The group that I joined BECAUSE it was for single payer stabbed us in the back in the task force deliberations, and supported forced insurance buying! Why, I don't know. I'm assuming there was money changing hands somewhere. There were more supposed people interests on the task force than corporation interests, but when the "people" interests sold us out, that changed.
When they tried to sell us the new line, I got up and walked out of the meeting. Later, everyone else quit, also.
So now we work with PNHP instead. If they screw us, we leave. We don't do the Democrat thing of continuing to support them because we want to believe that they are good and have our best interests at heart.
Thank you, folks, for being willing to discuss this issue about how to get progressives at least all going in the same direction, if not being on the same page. (Sorry, Susan Jacoby notwithstanding, I do not consider "folks" a pejorative term.)
For me "progressive" is not defined by party membership but by idea, program and policy content; thinking outside a strictly ideological framework enables me to embrace multiple approaches. I am a big fan of William James - truth is what works and sometimes that truth is, to borrow a currently popular phrase, "inconvenient". So, for me, defining what we really need in order to go forward or "progress" is the first step. Then one needs to figure out how to get there. If that requires inventing something entirely new, OK, but if one can use whatever happens to be lying around, so much the better - Mother Nature has gone quite a way by using whatever she had lying around, tinkering with various combinations and permutations with a little sauce from random mutations thrown in here and there. I grew up in a house where my folks made the most amazing things out of "spare parts". With 5 kids, we didn't have enough bucks to buy ready made.
With that as prologue, let me cut to the chase.
1) can we agree on some tangibles? E.g., universal access to health care. Gotta admit, for me this is a line in the sand - I have been working in the field for over 25 years and I truly believe our system is on life support and we are continuing to pull the plug. It is an absurd system and if my impatience leaks through in my posts, it is out of a growing sense of desperation.
2) how do we get there? I think that whatever one may think of the market model in general, it is a dismal failure with regard to the provision of health care - trying to fit healthcare into the market model is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole - you have to cut so many corners off that it bleeds to death. The phrase I use is "you can have good healthcare or you can have good business but you can't have both." The "major" political candidates have chosen various shades of the business model - a band aid for a broken leg ain't gonna fix it, and pressuring the band aid guy to put more band aids, even if he would, is still a useless exercise. While working at the local level is nice, this problem needs a systemic fix. Single payer is the only model that would really work
3) can we use what we've got lying around or do we have to start from scratch? With regard to healthcare, we do have the answer lying around - Medicare. The concept matches the need - Healthcare is a fundamental necessity; a decent society would provide it for it's members as part of the social contract we have with each other. Obama doesn't have to "start from scratch" - he could easily use and expand on what we already have - he prefers the market/business model.
Even if there were no other areas of disagreement between him and myself, this might well be a deal breaker for me, but there are SO many other areas where he continues to fail. One could perform a similar analysis for the the war(s), FISA - you name it, each of us has our own fundamental issues in various orders of priority - but the upshot is there are an awful lot of us out there who, in the aggregate, realize that voting for Obama (or, hopefully it goes without saying, McCain) is accepting at best, albeit, ala Zinn, with a sigh, or facilitating at worst our own continuing demise.
For those who have no use for electoral politics as an agent of "progress", at least admit that it certainly has demonstrated an enormous capacity as an agent of "regress", and must be actively engaged in for that reason alone, if no other. This is NOT, however, an argument for "least worst", because, as has hopefully been demonstrated by now, voting for ANY shade of worst GUARANTEES that, indeed, a "worst" is what we will get. With regard to Obama, I am perpetually amazed at how many principles progressives are willing to flush away to get a black Democrat elected Pres, no matter what. If I really thought that electing a black Dem pres would have ANY significant effect on ending racism in America, I would have to participate, but please! Did appointing a black Supr. Ct. Justice help any? A black Sec. of State? Or is it not so much his presence in office, but the fact of his election that would "prove" we are a "post racial" society? Is anybody really serious about such an argument?
In fact dare I suggest that with regard to the issues that have a real impact on people's lives, black as well as white as well as red, etc.etc, that Obama is not a good choice -face it folks, he ain't gonna help you, that is becoming more and more clear.
Which gets me back to my pragmatism - I am a reg. Dem, so I can vote in the Dem primary, for a progressive Dem. I might even suggest that all progressives register Dem so they could do the same, and then, if their guy/gal doesn't get the nomination, support and vote for whatever other progressive there is. This is rather the same as others proselytizing me to register Green as a protest. But the Green party presumably wouldn't need me in the primary to select a progressive candidate, the Dem party might. I guess the point here is that the party doesn't matter - get as many progressive candidates on as many of the parties ballots as possible, because at this point, the point is not to get any particular individual elected, the point is to demonstrate that if any party wants to win it will HAVE to incorporate a progressive agenda and commit to it. The point is to demonstrate that we will no longer accept the argument that we have nowhere else to go. That is why I am so upset at people like Zinn who, de facto, perpetuate that argument. That argument is the single most powerful weapon that the corp. parties have. And they will not only do their damnedest to convince us of that, but as insurance, they will do their damnedest to make sure that it is so - witness what they have done to Kucinich and Nader.
As a pragmatist, at this point I think we need to focus like a laser on voting progressive, whatever flavor of candidate. Can we not all decide to at least do this? If we argue among ourselves, say McKinney vs Nader, then we will be doing the corp. Dem.'s hatchet work for them. I like McKinney but what worries me is that the Greens will do their "safe state" thing again - "don't endanger the (corp.) Dem in a 'swing' state." That to me sends the message to the Dems - "Don't worry about us, we'll just do our little protest quietly over here in the corner, we're no threat to you. Please, oh please don't call us 'spoilers', we just couldn't bear it." Gotta admit, a Party that sends that kind of message is not one I can get too excited about.
I have pretty much given up on the progressive media - they do not have the power of their, at least purported, convictions - rather like the farmer who spends all day milking the cows then in the evening kicks the bucket over. I can only guess at their motivations, but I can observe that, like Mr. Zinn, at the end of the day whatever happens won't really affect them - they will still write their books and mags, make their speeches, get their healthcare. A "least worst" strategy is safe for them. It is not for the rest of us, and I can't help thinking that the heroes of Mr. Zinn's books might well scoff at the timidly safe approach adopted by their would-be heirs.
A "split" progressive vote is OK, as long as it's split among progressives. Maybe we can't get our favorite progressive elected but we CAN advance our progressive agenda mightily by demonstrating at the polls that we, whether under Nader's or McKinney's banner, ticket whatever, are a force that must be reckoned with. This is not cajoling, or arguing or marching or pressuring, all of which have been tried and all of which are totally ineffective when opposed by big enough checkbooks. This is demonstrating, clearly and without equivocation that we are here, we are a force to be reckoned with and we will not be moved - we have spent too much of our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor crawling back to you corp politicos, now you must come to us. That is one thing we REALLY could accomplish this time. First you must be credible before you will be credited. Right now, as a movement, we have no credibility - as a voting "bloc" we could establish that overnight. Think about it.
Kman, why don't you ask your third grader why the third building fell. You know, the one that didn't get hit by a plane? Or did your extensive TV research not encompass WTC 7?
http://www.wtc7.net/
RichM: Why call "dustdevil" an imbecile? And how do you deduce that Zinn's use of "apparently" in referring to Al Queda responsibility for 9-11 was his way of not wanting to be distracted by 9-11 Truth controversies?? In defense of Dustdevil, there is no excuse for Zinn to reiterate the lie. 9-11, the INSIDE JOB, is the prism through which to understand the gravity of the events which followed. Denial of 9-11 truth issues has allowed the U.S. public to slumber through the horrific slaughter and looting in the Middle East. The denial also allows the public to ignore the idea that 9-11 was the catalyst for declaring war on the population of the U.S. as well. The "War on Terror" has facilitated the rampant looting of our own economy as the fascist police state becomes more firmly entrenched with each passing day. 9-11 is not just a "side issue"--false flag operations have been and will continue to be part of the modus operandi of the military/industrial/Congressional/complex. Why do so many of the so-called progressive left want to minimize this issue. I really don't understand. I don't particular care for all 9-11 Truthers, and there is conflict between certain factions, but that should not detract from the fact that it is a movement which transcends the old left/right yin-yang which is our good cop/bad cop electoral process. Zealous? I hope so. Whiney? No. This is a Shout-Out! I think a lot of "progressives" could make use of a bit more zealous energy.
And to leftk: What do you mean by "racist and fascist undertones" concerning "9-11 stuff", especially in referring to Dustdevil as a "dangerous imbecile"? If you're talking about using 9-11 as a staging event to relaunch a genocidal war in the Middle East, then I must agree. Stay DANGEROUS Dustdevil!!
A truly independent, populist-progressive movement would raise funds to bypass Corporate/War Party Media by putting up billboards in every Congressional district and ads on buses which would show Afghani and Iraqi children with the message: War Is Terrorism. Vote for Candidates Who Oppose It. Work To End It.
"It saddens me that Howard Zinn would write that it was Al Qaeda that was apparently responsible for the 911 attacks.
That has never been proven by our government. Shortly after 911, Colin Powell promised to provide a "white paper" that would show proof. That paper never reached the public"
This is why many people like me now dislike CommonDreams.org. It's full of nutjobs this. Hey 9-11 conspiracy nutjobs: Millions watched the whole thing live on TV and watched both towers collapse due to airplane damage. Even Third graders understand this. It very disgusting that discussions like this still exist.
Zinn said:
"There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 — exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks."
The more I think about this the more profound a point it is.
What these two puppets need to do is bring our troops home and start making some changes right here on our own homeland. There are thousands of Americans who are in need of decent housing, affordable health care, infrastructures in need of repair, manufacturing needed for more jobs, labor unions, banning Nafta, funded college while more health care workers are needed. While these fools fight a useless war, america is falling fast into a third world country and people are starving, dying early and ending up homeless.
greenerthanthou July 18th, 2008 1:26 pm
Spot on.
socialistmatt July 18th, 2008 1:28 pm
Are right wing terroists worse than left wing terroists?
Many good comments here.
Three important points.
1 Never vote for an Incumbent.
2 Never vote for a member of a war Party -the dems/repubs.
3 Beneath the radar, not getting much attention yet is the "Bush Indictment Project". Only vote for a State Attorney General and County Prosecutor who supports these Indictments because it is he/she who will have the responsibility of bringing them to Court in all 50 States. This is far more important than Impeachment and will change the course of US history - but only if enough voters are informed. Future presidents will be far less likely to wage war, after successful Indictments of Bush/Cheney.
To make Zinn's article a little more interesting the following information adds to his insight.
Korea was one country occupied by the Japanese during WWII. Afterwords, the US in its great wisdom divided the country into two and gave the upper half to Russia for administration, while we took the lower half. It was supposed to be for rounding-up the Japanese soldiers and getting a government started. Russia used the opportunity to turn the north into a communist state. You know the rest.
After WWII, the british who were given protectorate status of Japanese occupied Vietnam gave the country back to the Imperial French who had been oppressing the Nams for centuries and had been helping the Japanese during the war. A war broke out for independance and Vietnam turned to Communist China for help. After a year or so the French quit and ran home. The Vietnam victors were rather brutal in killing all French Imperial hang-ons and French sympathizers. The US decided to help those vietnam who fled to the south who were at risk of being slaughtered.
The Iraqis overran Kuwait to settle a score regarding Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields and relief from a war debt. The surrounding Arab nations did not want the US to interfere and had started to successfully negotiate a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. We wanted the war anyway and falsely convinced the Saudis that Saddam was going to invade their country - thus obtaining their approval.
War can be avoided when you do the right thing!
endCapitalism:
I just wrote at least a 2000 word reply and then lost it. Now I'm really annoyed, so I'll just do a few bullet points:
-One of the biggest reasons for capitalism's unsustainability today is the way the profit motive conflicts with ecological considerations. In the Soviet Union (and I'm talking about Khrushchev or Brezhnev, not Stalin), how much effect could a radical environmentalist expert/movement have had on government policy? I'm not presuming the answer to be "very little", I'm just saying it's something to chew on. Also, I realize that the answer almost *could not* be "less than in the U.S.", because clearly, radical environmentalist critiques have had virtually NO effect on the government's policies in our corporate culture. With regard to the environmental threat, I think we should revisit the parts of Marx where he points out that the role of the working class isn't to avenge itself against the bourgeoisie, it's to topple the bourgeoisie in the name of humanity (and the planet). The bourgeoisie is, as Marx said, no longer fit to rule. Nothing makes that fact plainer than its blatant disregard for impending ecological crises.
-Just because the Soviet Union was the first socialist state doesn't make it the best. In fact, being the first of something almost guarantees you will be the worst--make the most mistakes, etc. For my part I prefer to point to the example of the Sandinistas. Were they radical enough? No. Did they socialize the MoP and introduce true, full economic democracy? No. But they were pretty damn progressive, and they were all-around progressive (environment, free speech and free dissent, education/literacy, women's issues), and would have been even better if they hadn't had to spend Reagan's terms in office defending themselves against U.S.-sponsored right wing terrorists.
Those were my main points, but trust me, the rest of my post was AWESOME.
oh, and endcapitalism, remember that it was Khrushchev who critcized Stalin and his excesses. This caused great consternation from true believers in the Communist Party (come to our showing tonight for more info), and was a boon to the pro-capitalist propaganda in the West.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have been subjected to even more outlandish propaganda, with no one questioning it (except Alexander Cockburn). You'll hear people saying that Stalin killed 20 million people, 40 million people, 80 million people. Gee, pretty soon you're talking real numbers!! I even read one source claiming 100 million! In other words, Stalin murdered almost everyone in Russia, and we didn't know about until 1991.
It doesn't matter. None of it is ever questioned. If it's anti-Soviet, it's allowed.
Stalin was suspicious and he did hold show trials, in which the outcome was guaranteed. (Like the ones in Guantanamo).
He did purge a lot of generals and the ones that were left did defeat Hitler. In Poland, the army went over to the Nazis. We, of course, don't know if the murdered generals were pro-Nazi, because they were not true trials.
But that's old history. Newer history is what happened to the USSR when they became "free" in 1991.
Millions died. But they don't say that. They sat "Life expectancy dropped". Thousands of orphans live on the streets. People were hungry and homeless. Americans got to adopt cute little blonde babies and DynCorp got to traffic blonde sex slaves.
And we're all supposed to celebrate. How sick is that?.
mcdevins, thanks for your input. re: Al Sharton. Once I realized that I had been conned by the mass media, I also realized that just about all of us have been lied to by a teenager!
wsws- you suggest that Cynthia McKinney act like Tom Joad and go where the oppressed are. Well, I don't know everything she does, but I do know that she supports the Rev. Pickney, a political prisoner in Michigan, and all the Green Party candidates went to a Mumia Abu-Jamal rally. It's difficult to find this out from mass media, and, as the black-out of the Green Party Convention and nomination on this site shows, even "progressive" media won't talk about what the Greens are trying to do.
I love (not) all the people on this forum who prescribe that others should get active in other ways besides electoral politics. How do you know what we do in our spare time? Tonight my independent media center is going to show "Seeing Red", about the Communists in the 30s, who tried for revolution and got the reforms that all of us have benefitted from. I don't know how many people will come. But we keep trying. If people don't respond, is that our fault?
endCapitalism got nothing right he is an authoritarian, he doesn't even deseve to be called a socialist.
Poet July 18th, 2008 8:35 am: I read HZ's "People's History..." from cover to cover, and that is why I am so disappointed in this article, and wondered out loud if HZ is losing it. In retrospect, I am now thinking that "People's History..." was lacking in pointing us forward, even if it did a good job of setting the record straight on many historical matters.
endCapitalism July 18th, 2008 10:29 am: Thank you for that eloquent post! You got it 100% correct.
agreed, Rich. But a dangerous imbecile. 9-11 truth stuff has racist and fascist undertones if you ask me.
dustdevil - As I suspected, you're an imbecile, & not worth responding to.
In answer to RichM--You opinion that people who seek the truth about 911 are whining quasi-religious zealots puts you in the class of people who are enablers to the coverup. You are probably wealthy and happy with however many innocent people our government and military murder as long as it doesn't hurt your pocketbook or lifestyle. Zinn's sin is small compared to yours.
endCapitalism writes:
Those on the "left" in the US and other western countries who carried the banner of anti-Sovietism, did a major disservice to the international class struggle. They effectively kept the "left" confused for all those years and in doing so, must assume some of the responsibility for today's reality of total global capitalist hegemony.
The soviet union was not very different from a fascist state. It did not embody the values of socialism or equality, but a strange and scary new form of authoritarianism and centralization. I detest Soviet socialism just as much or more than neo-liberalism. They are both against the working class.
As Chomsky has said a lot of people on the left are borderline fascists. Submitting all authority to some vanguard is not something I would assent to. In fact, I'd fight against it.
Call me an imperialist if you want. But I'm fighting against all forms of domination. Furthermore, your suspicion of the petty bourgeois left is precisely the suspicious attitude that led to the purges of the soviet era.
EXCELLENT POSTS: HAR DAVIDS, JERRY ROSE, & WORDS ARE IMPORTANT.
poopdeck July 18th, 2008 9:23 am writes "President Obama's social programs to almost zilch unless..."
-good point. And he will do almost nothing to help Blacks because he is very careful to not even hint at race or racism. He doesn't want to scare off White voters therefore he dilutes himself and self-castrates any attempt to speak truth to power and keeps Blacks at arms length.
Mr 'dustdevil' (8:07 am) illustrates the annoying quasi-religious zealotry so typical of 9-11 "Truthers," complaining that:
"...It saddens me that Howard Zinn would write that it was Al Qaeda that was apparently responsible for the 911 attacks. That has never been proven by our government....(blah blah blah)."
- Zinn used the word "APPARENTLY." He did this to signal that his article isn't about your pet issue. He's well aware of the issue, but in this piece is deliberately trying to avoid getting immersed in that point. But that's not enough for you, is it. For most 9-11 "Truthers," everything has to be a discussion of 9-11, or it's whining time.
It's ironic that 9-11 Truthers are such single-minded fanatics, because they have a strong case, objectively speaking. But their crazed insistence that everything in the world be viewed through the single prism of the "inside job" issue probably alienates more potential support than they attract on the objective strength of their arguments.
Those on the "left" in the US and other western countries who carried the banner of anti-Sovietism, did a major disservice to the international class struggle. They effectively kept the "left" confused for all those years and in doing so, must assume some of the responsibility for today's reality of total global capitalist hegemony. In this regards, the icons of the "left" - the petty bourgeois left - the likes of Zinn and Chomsky, have ultimately done a major disservice to the international working class. The Soviet Union, for all it's warts and problems, was the FIRST socialist state in the history of humankind. It supported the anti-colonial battles that took place in the 20th Century and defeated fascism in WWII. Who knows what the world would be like today, had the petty bourgeois left not been able to confuse the "left" in the western world and instead had constructively supported the socialist states fighting American imperialism? The whole outcome may have been quite different. As a "historian", Zinn owes it to himself and the rest of us to look deeper into all that and his role in helping split the left.
And the world should not forget Panama: in order to get Manuel Noriega (an American puppet), the US invaded and killed about 5,000 civilians and left over 20,000 homeless. How much longer does the world have to put up with this murderous nation??? Wars will end when there is no one left to pull a trigger.
You can be absolutely certain that Nader, McKinney, and Barr will not be invited to participate in the debates because the Obama campaign knows that they will ask questions that are political poison for their candidate.
The only people that deserve to "win", meaning getting the murderous foreigners off their backs, are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan whose countries were invaded illegally.
Either Obama or McCain will be our next president. There are substantial differences between the two on domestic political, social, and economic issues. However, anyone who believes that Obama will stop making war somwhere in the world should make an appointment with his/her shrink. One tipoff is that he wants to expand our army with some 60,000 soldiers. Why, if that is not for making it easier to conduct war in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time? Sixty-thousand is twice the number used for the "surge" in Iraq! Are they intended for "Obama-surges?"
The rising costs of war (Tom Engelhardt has written an excellent article about this. It can be read on Antiwar.com) and the shrinking revenue income of the Federal government next year will shrivel the funding of a President Obama's social programs to almost zilch unless.....he borrows more money from the Chinese which he has recently kicked in the balls by criticizing President Bush for attending the opening of the Olympic Games and adulating the Tibetan "pope".
For those who (like pissantnobody)consider Howard Zinn's above article lacking in sufficient detail I suggest you read "A People's History of the US","War", and "Original Zinn" for more detailed and elaborate analysis of the issues involved with war.
********************
Davedubya--How could you forget The Mexican-American War (1848-1850)? Call the tidal wave of Mexican Immigrants now doing the scutt work of our society Montezuma's Revenge. Especialy when the next generation of Latinos and Latinas turns the tables and treats their former Anglo masters with the patronizing condescension with which they were treated.
Karma (or sowing and reaping for non-Bhuddists or Hindus)works--say "amen" Siouxrose!
It saddens me that Howard Zinn would write that it was Al Qaeda that was apparently responsible for the 911 attacks.
That has never been proven by our government. Shortly after 911, Colin Powell promised to provide a "white paper" that would show proof. That paper never reached the public.
I have been researching the attacks for almost seven years now and I am thoroughly convinced that the government's conspiracy theory is totally false in every aspect. It doesn't take a genius to know that. It just takes common sense. Mr Zinn is certainly analytical enough to know that Al Qaeda did not act alone in the attacks.
This type of appeasement is a serious affront to the cause of justice in the world.
I am shocked at the low quality of this piece. It goes even beyond low quality all the way into treachery, in that it gives the war profiteers a pass, as well as the probable real conspirators of 9/11 - who work in Washington and Tel Aviv. Has old age finally caught up with HZ? I hope that's it, because otherwise there is no excuse for someone of his (former?) sophistication to publish this. I suppose I should be happy that many of the posts see through it, but this back-handed cover for the imperialists brings great shame to his name. Disgusting!
Absent this class traitor, we must forge ahead to build the Leninist party of workers' revolution, integrate it into the major industrial sectors, and at long last wrest control of the world economy from the mad tyranny of capitalism.
The next neocon war the oil industry wins and Iran lights up the middle east oil fields and oil goes to 500 to 1000$ a barrel
The only war that can be won, is the one that can be prevented by common sense and diplomacy on all sides. The flip-side is, of course: no profits for the arms-industrie.
bnerin wrote:
"I would love to have some journalist ask Obama and McCain 'Sir, do you agree with Howard Zinn's Memo? If not, why not?'"
Well, we know part of the answer. Obama disowned his own pastor, the Reverend Wright, for saying that "war is terrorism," which is Zinn's concluding point.
As for McBomb, it goes without saying ....
By the size, cost and the ritual surrounding the Vietnam Memorial one would be led to believe that the US had won the US war in Vietnam. Be that as it may, the Germans or the Japanese do not have a similar monument commemorating the war they lost.
For the US to declare war against Afghanistan because Bin Laden was there, is like declaring war against New Jersey because the Mafia is there.
It appeased those people who want, allow, knee-jerk reactions, even if it is in the form of misguided revenge. It was publicity stunt and it seemed to be working. Bush's approval rating went up considerably.
And remember, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq, and I don't believe any were from Afghanistan. But that shouldn't matter.
I will support third party because the two corporate candidates will support another war for what purpose? Oh yeah, not for the oil.
so it goes,
rsliverpool
"As usual some posters here are passing on info that is as inaccurate and misleading as our friends in the msm do. Re: Mr. Zinn's endorsement please see it for yourself."
Yes, yes, very inaccurate indeed. BTW thanks for that link to Zinn endorsing Obama. I love the line "I will be forced against my will to make a choice and I will probably choose Obama", as if there were only choice A or B.
Here's another,
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080403082953122
"KA: Should the left in America support Obama?
HZ: Obama will be better than the alternative, so we must support him at the polling booth. But before and after election day he should be subject to sharp, bold criticism to move him forward."
So how's that coming along? Have his policies being shifting to the right or left? And do you honestly believe that his rightward tilt for issues like telecom immunity, spying on Americans, bombing Pakistan, escalating the war in Afghanistan, keeping our troops in Iraq, unconditional support for Israel, advocating against universal health care, advocating for nuclear power, expanding the size of the military, arguing against impeachment etc... will help him get elected? None of these are popular stances. They will alienate people who might support him. So these are not mere election ploys and should not be passed off as such by someone as intelligent as Howard Zinn. They are consistent policy statements that adhere to what we might call the Bush (or American) doctrine of imperial fascism. He's not responding to grassroots pressure now, and will be even less likely to once elected. His actual policy positions are so clearly and repulsively on display, that the best his supporters can muster in defense of him is that he is lying to the public in order to get elected, as if that was some kind of necessity.
ubrew12 (10:53 pm) writes, "...I believe that war is sometimes necessary, as it was after 9-11..."
- Why do you say war was necessary after 9-11?
He continues, "...But the execution of justice after 9-11 bears no resemblance to the blatant takeovers of Iraq and Afghanistan that have resulted, and its increasingly clear they are about oil."
- It was clear from the get-go that they were about oil.
There's something that should make it a lot easier for progressives to vote their principles in the elections and in their everyday exchange/association. The progressive platform has a lot of socialist elements and the capitalist idea that these elements should be essentially crushed should itself be crushed. We're drowning in evidence that the extreme right policies are catastrophic to the public interests. Enough! And if you wonder how a progressive candidate can possibly win, well, Gandhi said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I remember a quote by Freeman Dyson, the physicist, who said, 'in war, HOW you fight is eventually more important than WHY' As I've aged, I've realized that that statement is true of all our endeavours.
All of our endeavours constitute a kind of struggle, a war if you will, against our circumstances, our environment, and HOW we compose ourselves in that struggle is ultimately more important than WHY, for no more important reason than we often don't completely UNDERSTAND the reasons why (unless we're evangelicals, in which case we understand 'why' a little too 'clearly' for comfort). But we know the morality of the HOW even without some miraculous vision: because HOW is composed of ACTIONS, and ACTIONS always speak louder than words or fuzzy sentiments. Even a CHILD knows that if you're waterboarding someone BECAUSE your morality compels you to do so, your hurting of them is of immediate and tangible consequence to your actual 'morality'. You can be Jesus himself, but if you're waterboarding someone, THAT's what you're DOING.
An old country song taught me this: "Love...is something that you DO"
Its not something that you feel, you wear, you ARE, you sing. If you don't walk love...YOU DON'T LOVE, you're just borrowing its clothes.
I believe that war is sometimes necessary, as it was after 9-11. But the execution of justice after 9-11 bears no resemblance to the blatant takeovers of Iraq and Afghanistan that have resulted, and its increasingly clear they are about oil. The outpouring of international sympathy that attended post-9-11 was a call to justice. We chose not to go there. Justice is a search for the truth, and in war, truth is the first casualty. Perhaps that's Zinns ultimate point: when you go to war you first kill the truth. After that's died, there is no chance for justice.
In the march to the Iraq invasion, I was reminded of a saying I'd heard long ago: "War is like wildfire... it makes its own weather", referring to the way a wildfire, by releasing heat into the air stream (usually at a ridge where it has the most effect), can literally change the wind around it, making the fighting of the fire almost impossible to predict. War is like wildfire: it releases nonlinear human passions that are IMPOSSIBLE to fathom, and which are EASILY capable of overwhelming the passions that led to the war in the first place. Those passions are of a breadth and depth that cannot be plumbed or understood, and make wars outcome impossible to predict. Zinn knows: this Iraq war may end, but it wont end, not for decades to come.
wsws.org says:
"I admire Howard Zinn greatly but what disappoints me is Professor Zinn's ongoing failure to point out what should be obvious to all. And that is that nothing is going to change, things are only going to get *worse,* unless and until a viable third party movement is established in the United States."
To be fair:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html
I agree with you 100%.There is no winner in a war.The soldier lost their arms,legs,eyes even life.The citizen lost their home,their family.The country lost the money,the citizens.The world lost peace.
Morther lost son,kid lost father...Many terrible things caused by wars.
Wish a forever peace for the world!
kman2 you are right on the money. The left wing of the Republicans, the sold out, despicable, Democrats laugh at the left. That's the truth!
Hey kman2: Can you outline the differences between McCain and Obama on the war?
"McCain is not going to do anything but literally laugh at the left"
Wrong, many Dems laugh at the leftists too.
$12,000,000,000.00 a month in Iraq
$4,000,000,000.00 a month in Afghanistan
The Democratic "antiwar" candidate wants 90,000 additional troops, which in effect, increases the military budget when it is already larger than the rest of the world combined. Vote for Obama?
Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as an "antiwar" candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a "major speech" on national security and the US war in Iraq.
The Democrats "antiwar" candidate, Sen. Barak Obama:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan," he warned. "We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16.shtml