Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congress Should Vote No On War Funding Bill
Today, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106 billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past, progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake, they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too, neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan - a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill. I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Posted in
60 Comments so far
Show AllAnd then what, Tom? Is it possible that what you are proposing, pulling troops out without any further plan, will make make the situation worse, not better? Are you prepared to return parts of Afghanistan to Taliban rule? Does anyone recall what life under the Taliban was like? Was that better than the status quo? I don't know myself, but I certainly think it's worth asking the question. I don't believe there are any easy choices.
Why is it the responsibility of the English-speaking Empire to occupy Afghanistan? If you believe the US occupies the country for humnitarian purposes and to bring democracy to the region, you are sadly mistaken and need to look beyond the propaganda of the msm and govt. Do a google or wiki search on "trans Afghanistan Pipeline and trans Caspian Pipeline; then read up on the Anglo-Afghan wars of the previous version of the English-speaking Empire.
If you believe violence, imperial occupation and the slaughter of thousands of innocents is the answer, then I can be of no assistance.
Weak responses. It's not our responsibility. Then whose is it? It's really all about oil. Really? And we have no other way of getting it? Putting words in my mouth: "If you believe violence, imperial occupation and the slaughter of thousands of innocents is the answer, then I can be of no assistance." Surely you can do better?
You're right - we can get oil. But if corporations can turn a few extra bucks, why not spend Treasury money?
Israel.
Israel, Israel.
Israel, Israel, Israel.
So bury your head in the sand and pretend the facts don't exist. You obviously have a very weak understanding of history, geo-politics and imperial strategic interests. If you believe the msm propaganda, I feel sorry for you. My advice: put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to serve in Afghanistan, otherwise you might just sound like a naive chickenhawk.
For details on our thirst for oil - described by US planners following WWII as the greatest prize in history - and a necessary acquisition for a nascent empire on the make - read NSC 68. We invaded Iraq, not only to get oil - we get plenty of oil from our Western Hemispheric sources - but to control the access to that oil by our economic competitors. Our hand on the spigot is a wonderful persuader.
It is not our responsibility to bring our way of life to others. We pretend to bring democracy when democracy is defined by us as a regional power playing their US-given role in the global economic scheme of things. Those nations that don't want to play their role are demonized and punished. Some who have been so punished include, but are not limited to: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam.
Others who we don't have the power to punish include France and Germany who when we wanted to invade Iraq and asked for their participation listened to the populations (against participation and invasion by 70+% in both places) and said no. So they were condemned as 'Old Europe', and Italy and Spain and some of the poor and broken Soviet Block survivers were 'New Europe' because their leadership ignored what the majority of their populations wanted and opted for participation in the Iraqi fiasco. So the formula is this: support the US no matter what your population wants makes you a democracy - even if you're a blatant dictatorship. Do what the vast majority of your population wants (what used to be called a democratic approach) and if it's against US interests, you're not a democracy, turning reason on its head.
Sioux Rose
TIRE BITER: Good post (as most of yours are). Using this article's topic in reference to the chilling analysis by Chris Hedges (published yesterday), there are two basic ways to get oil and run the engine of the industrial world. One is through paying a fair market price, preferably (from the U.S. point of view) in dollars; and the other is to use bully power/naked aggression to just seize it.
From the standpoint of the nation's interests, were that analysis to reflect the well-being of its citizens (as opposed to narrow elites) paying, even a higher market price would prove far most cost-effective than what is now becoming the result: endless, expensive wars with increasing tension heating up like a cauldron in the Middle East and rapidly spreading into Asia as the various powers begin to position their fight over remaining fossil fuels. The fact that the U.S. dollar is considered virtually worthless holds extremely destabilizing ramifications. In a sense the dollar is like a virus that's spread so thoroughly around the world that it would prove no simple matter to take it out of circulation. And at what cost since indications suggest that eliminating the "disease" would kill its hosts. The next 6 years are lining up to match much in the way of prophecy. Tribulation is an apt term for it, and I'd say we're one year into that process now.
"The next 6 years are lining up to match much in the way of prophecy. Tribulation is an apt term for it, and I'd say we're one year into that process now."
Nonsense. The same delusional religious twaddle - blame some invisible sky-god for your own actions. An easy cop-out and largely responsible for the world's ills.
And to respond to your above comment about having sympathy for the women living under tyranny - the same comment goes. Anybody who believes that some sky-god has put them into a second class place in their society and accepts it deserves to be in a second class position in their society. I have no sympathy for the self-delusional who refuse to question the consequences of their delusions.
Sioux Rose
TIRE: You may get an "A" in logic, but you get an "F" in spirituality. What a haughty load of crap. I will not bother to respond to your posts in the future.
Ah, now you're a judge of one's 'spirituality' based on what? Reality? Or the addlepated, new-age, feel-good, astrological nonsense you incessantly spout?
I'd rather be noted for logic and reason than notorious for promoting superstition and simple-minded, 'supernatural' assessments based on cosmic events or the alignment of the planets. But maybe that's the Mars in me speaking - I am an Aries after all. LOL
In the final analysis I have no patience with the drivel dribbled out by the superstitious practicioners of such dark-age ignorance. I find it embarrassing for you and abhorrent to me. But you can believe what you will. I won't, or can't stop you even if I so wished - particularly when you so eloquently make my point for me.
As for you not responding in the future - thank you in advance. I find that a blessing in disguise.
If you don't mind, perhaps you could show some tolerance instead of acting like a bulldozer. Sioux Rose was being nice to you and trying to help you out and yet you hurt her in return ! Maybe you don't understand astrology but that gives you no right to insult her for understanding it clearly. Besides, if you had actually been paying attention and learning to connect the dots, you would have realized by now that the astrological predictions along with logic and reason have actually corresponded well. I know patience isn't easy but at least try to have an open heart and mind and learn to respect and at least try to understand their beliefs. No one is forcing you to be like them. I realize that all this petty bickering is what keeps us in the losing column. I had realized this when I had earlier insulted a dear ally on this site and eventually regretted it now that I'm going back and reading more of her posts. I could get angry and flame at you for insulting her but since that would just raise my blood pressure, I would kindly ask of you to apologize to Sioux Rose when you cool down and reread and think about your rude behavior. Look, no one is perfect but we all can accept scores, pass or fail in life. I'm an amateur in astrology myself but even I can see from that post of yours that you really don't understand astrology but are trying to hurt her just to make it look like you're some macho-egotistical or something. A lot of us go through so much pain and suffering in life and yet we become the smartest as a spiritual compensation. Even when it's easy to laugh at others for suffering due to their bad decision making even if they did it out of glee, I resisted and sometimes I felt sad and even tried to help them where I could. Sioux Rose is a sweetheart and you have no right to insult her like you did !
“If you don't mind, perhaps you could show some tolerance instead of acting like a bulldozer. Sioux Rose was being nice to you and trying to help you out and yet you hurt her in return ! Maybe you don't understand astrology but that gives you no right to insult her for understanding it clearly.”
What if I do mind?
I understand enough about astrology to know its bunk. And please don’t lecture me about ‘rights’. How did she put it about my opinion “what a haughty load of crap”? How is that trying to help me? How is this being nice? How is that not disrectful or demeaning? Live by the sword, die by the sword. Don’t like it? Don’t play with swords.
Words, like actions, have consequences. I’ve been called a ‘nazi’ here and a devotee of ‘hate sites’ because I merely posted what Israeli public officials have said about the abuse of the Palestinians, and a ‘zionist Jew-lover’ because I suggest that Jews shouldn’t be sent to the gas-chambers again. I’ve been called a ‘communist dupe’ because I suggested that Cuba should be released from its embargo. The fact is, the anonimity on these discussion boards makes it possible for people to say – without consequences – what they couldn’t get away with saying to your face. I wish it was different, but that’s the way it is.
“Besides, if you had actually been paying attention and learning to connect the dots, you would have realized by now that the astrological predictions along with logic and reason have actually corresponded well.”
What, that we’re now in the first year of the end-times? What nonsense.
“I could get angry and flame at you for insulting her but since that would just raise my blood pressure, I would kindly ask of you to apologize to Sioux Rose when you cool down and reread and think about your rude behavior.”
You could. I was not angry when I posted but wrote what I have thoughtfully considered for a long time. Her comments (as I don’t know her personally) represent some of the worst of human frailty - the clueless superstition, up to and including organized religion, that so many people ‘believe in’ that makes it impossible to reason with them, and which is the cause of much of the pain and suffering in the world. The belief that things will be better in some later world after death lulls them into treating this world like a cesspool.
“I'm an amateur in astrology myself but even I can see from that post of yours that you really don't understand astrology but are trying to hurt her just to make it look like you're some macho-egotistical or something.”
‘Some macho-egotistical or something’? What’s that?
Why doesn’t it surprise me that you’re a ‘believer’ in astrological nonsense as well?
The point, I assume, of this site it to discuss issues. If you read my posts you will find that I use reason until someone becomes judgmental of my motives and intentions – but not my arguments. Which seems to be the point of discussion. Reason is far more useful to this end than assigning supernational unproven ‘causes’ for what amounts to human ignorance of the consequences of their acts.
“A lot of us go through so much pain and suffering in life and yet we become the smartest as a spiritual compensation. Even when it's easy to laugh at others for suffering due to their bad decision making even if they did it out of glee, I resisted and sometimes I felt sad and even tried to help them where I could. Sioux Rose is a sweetheart and you have no right to insult her like you did !”
To live is to suffer. We all suffer. Suffering does not necessarily equal spiritual maturity. I don’t laugh at others’ suffering, but I am tired of people blaming everything else – up to and including some invisible sky-god – or in your particular case the orientation of the stars and planets – for what amounts to their own decisions and their often uncontrollable plight. We are all subject to forces beyond our comprehension and power to resist. And yes, sometimes it is impossible to understand or escape the suffering to which we are all subject – but whining about it does not fix things. Life is hard. People suffer. They suffer far more when they are poor and ignorant. Life is not for whimps and if you don’t like it, there’s always the exit door. There are, after all, worse things than death.
Here's an easy choice for you: Healthcare, NOT warfare. I don't see why you support using MY money to make profits for YOUR corporate stocks. That's larceny and fraud. You are supporting criminal behavior wrapped in our pretty flag. It's not patriotism, pal. It's bullshit.
There is a very easy choice: end this immoral and illegal war, prosecute those responsible for war crimes, and pay for the damages. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. I am so tired of idiots.
ChristianHargrove, I agree that reparations are necessary, but let's not put the debt on the taxpayers broken back. I propose a tax on corporate profits from pumping, transporting, refining and the distribution of oil. I would also like to see a fee based on the amount of stocks individual shareholders own. With these revenues reparation could be given without further pain to taxpayers who have been gouged by these disgusting corporations and their scummy shareholders.
Wake up. Ever consider what life is like for a Tibetan under Chinese rule? Or life under the Soviet Union for states in their orbit of influence? Do you know what is going on in Somalia? Or what life is like for woman living in Saudi Arabia? Or what it is like for Palestinians to be terrorized by Israel every frigging day? Do you have a Messiah complex, or are you just on a mission to save Afghanistan as an apologetic for Obama?
Talk to the people of Afghanistan about what like was like under the Taliban vs. the warlords of today (have any idea under what conditions the Taliban took over, with help from the US who had a long history of supporting fundamentalist regimes in order to fight leftist and nationalist currents in the ME. For example, there would BE no Hamas without help from the US, Britain, Israel amongst others. The Taliban were fine with the US leading up to 9/11. They were taken on a royal tour around places like Texas and were treated like kings, the press did their usual part and didn't say too much, like they don't with Saudi Arabia, Colombia and other human rights horror stories that we openly support). Also, if the US was so concerned about Afghanistan’s well being, why have they allowed the IMF to rampage through the country as it always does and why have they underfunded alternative ideas like the National Solidarity Program, a World Bank program that appears to work for the people and empowers them? How in the world can you talk about people's well being when you remove their economic sovereignty and hand it over to parasitic and blood thirsty multi-nationals? Also, what logical person not swayed by nationalist sentiments would trust the US to do what is the interest of the general public in Afghanistan when it so obviously clashes with the interests of corporate power in the US and the US has such a horrendous record in these types of situations?
Please do a run down of the economic policies forced on Iraq, which have destroyed the country (these effects were anticipated), done so before the elections (which the US tried to stop), the US government claims the economic laws cannot be changed by future Iraqi governments (look up the 100 Bremer orders) and look at how much they crash right into public opinion in Iraq. Iraqis can vote for who they want, they just have no choice as far as having economic sovereignty and choosing their own economic policies. If they can’t control their economy how can they fund education, healthcare and the rest, which is funded out of the economic system? Look at the bi-partisan multiple attempts at privatizing Iraq’s oil over the will of about ¾’s of Iraqis and tell me this freaking government can be trusted to do a damn thing for Afghanistan when oil is involved. Even if it wasn’t about oil, the US will not let ANY country set a bad example ideologically, and to succeed in ways that undermine corporate power. You cannot let a country set a bad example by succeeding while choosing the “wrong” policies. If you want examples of this, with comments by endless administrations going back decades, let me know. They aren’t hard to find. Neither are apologists like you.
Congress Should Vote No On War Funding Bill
______________________________________
"Should" is a bold word.
But keep a good thought.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I agree, the easy things in the world have already been done.
But the first thing one does when trapped in a deep hole is to stop digging. We've dug ourselves into a deep and very expensive hole in Iraq and Afghanistan, and soon Pakistan, and can't get out until at least we stop digging. Which by the way I think is highly unlikely.
Do you honestly care that the Taliban run Afghanistan? I mean honestly? Did you care that Saddam ran Iraq for us? Or the Shah ran Iran for us? Or Batista ran Cuba for us? Or Marcos, Suharto, Franco, or any of the scores of usually right-wing dictators we supported over the years all over the world? I'm wrung dry of useless pity for victims of their own corrupt governments and ideology - I mean, look at America. Most Americans polled don't like the way things are here, but don't really want change. Change is unpredictable and frightening, and one more fear in an already extraordinarily fearful populace might put us over the top.
So do we Americans have it coming because we won't change the broken things here at home? Do we deserve the corrupt government and paranoid/fearful society we have? I don't know. But I do know that we've got it and can't get rid of it very easily this side of total economic/social collapse.
Half the world lives under one kind of tyranny or another. Who are we to decide for the Afghanis how they're to live?
We decided that for the Iraqis (and countless other countries) for decades and look how all that turned out.
If you remember, or if you don't, we created the environment if not the necessity for the Taliban by supporting the Northern Alliance of war lords that were cutting up the country for their own fun and profit, destroying any existant civil order, and growing poppies. They killed far more Afghanis than the Taliban and left most cities little more than rubble.
Do you think that a generation of constant war we helped to bring to the Afghanis was any better? Or the next generation of occupation and war we're about to bring them?
The Taliban drove out the Northern Alliance and executed the drug dealers - what some extreme American conservatives have wanted here for a long time. There are, in fact, many similarities between goals of the Taliban and the religious right here in America. Perhaps we should turn our attention to our own problems first; as there are a bunch of them.
Most Afghanis at first welcomed the Taliban who drove out the criminals we armed, trained, and supported with weapons and intelligence (as if we had any intelligence to spare).
The Taliban were less welcome after their religious extremism came to the forefront. But you know what, all religion is used for nothing more than to control people and the Taliban brought order - granted, not an order I would like to live under, but if the Afghanis want to believe that what they have is what Allah wants or that some invisible sky-god guides and protects them, more power to them. They deserve what they get. I would not like to live in an America run by the religious right either.
Maybe the best thing is for us to butt out of foreign intervention for a while and see what happens. After all, we're killing more 'innocent' civilians from drone-launched missiles and 500-lb bombs than the Taliban ever killed. And we've got our own extremist religious groups at home who would love to run America the way the Taliban would run Afghanistan and are trying very hard to do just that. Why don't we try to focus on them for a while?
Personally I would like everybody in the world to live under free governments (including American) or no governments; and be prosperous, happy, rational, non-delusional, and healthy. I would like to wake up and find that the majority of US action in the world during my lifetime was merely a bad dream. But neither exigency seems very likely and I when I die I fully expect to exit a world wracked by the same tyranny and misfortune it has always been subject to. Death where is thy sting?
"Half the world lives under one kind of tyranny or another. Who are we to decide for the Afghanis how they're to live?"
That strikes me as pretty heartless. I am not my brother's keeper.
Heartless? You mean that I no longer feel sorry for some poor downtrodden schmuck living under tyranny somewhere else in the world if I'm not actually willing or in a position to do something about it? Pity may make the one who pities feel superior because they empathize with a victim of tyranny somewhere, but it does nothing to alleviate the pain of the victims. That pretense is heartless because it makes you think you've actually done something when you haven't.
As for being your brother's keeper - well, no I am not anybody's keeper. My personal strategy and advice is this: It would be far better if you made yourself the best person you can be in the world - ethically, rationally, morally, etc. and encourage others to do the same. There are some things you can change and some things you can't. Wisdom is knowing which is which and putting your energies there.
If you want to help somebody, my guess is that you have a lot of 'brothers' living in your neighborhood who need your help. It might be more realistic to try to help those who you have some chance of helping - not somebody on the other side of the world who you can't help and don't know what they would consider helpful. Certainly, occupation and indescriminate bombing does not qualify as helping. All occupiers - however benign their intentions - eventually behave the same; they kill, and exploit, and lie about it.
Nice ideas guy. What if my government is killing people in other countries, with my tax dollars, which benefit governmental elites (who could give a crap about me and people like me) and their friends in the for profit war industry? What if my tax dollars are going to insurance big financial corporations’ profits on risky investments in developing countries (which almost always harm the countries far more than they help them and cause mass misery)? Do I just say, oh well, it's their fight, I'll just help Jim next door and hold doors open for old ladies. The world will be great if we all did this. Nonsense. People on the left have something that you are obviously missing. When we think of people being affected by the policies of our government we don't abstract away from what is happening. We know that the people being harmed are NO DIFFERENT than the people in our neighborhoods. They have families, want to save for retirement, have a favorite bar they go to after work to relax, want to feel that they have control over their lives (which includes having a democratic government responsive to their needs and things like control over their economic system), etc. They aren't some caricature that the propaganda apparatus has created to make them appear less like us, to again abstract away from the fact that these are people not tons different than us and we're harming and killing them by the thousands. I say this as someone living in a developing country right now; these people aren't tons different than people I grew up with. Ignoring what your government is doing with your tax dollars is irresponsible, cowardly and selfish. Maybe I'm wrong, but almost always people like you are simply afraid of fighting against people, institutions and governments much more powerful than themselves and they make excuses for being cowards.
You’re right though: feeling empathy alone doesn’t make the world a better place. Doing something with that empathy to help people does. If you want to focus on people closer to you that is great, more of that is needed to. Just don’t attack people for trying to help others in far more danger, far closer to bare bones existence for basically the same reasons you would help those closer to you.
“Nice ideas guy. What if my government is killing people in other countries, with my tax dollars, which benefit governmental elites (who could give a crap about me and people like me) and their friends in the for profit war industry? What if my tax dollars are going to insurance big financial corporations’ profits on risky investments in developing countries (which almost always harm the countries far more than they help them and cause mass misery)? Do I just say, oh well, it's their fight, I'll just help Jim next door and hold doors open for old ladies. The world will be great if we all did this. Nonsense.”
Perhaps it is nonsense. But in helping people, my major concern is results – not feeling superior. My guess it that you have a far better chance of helping the old lady next door than changing or destroying the Military Industrial Complex and the American Empire than practicing wish-fulfillment – which is what most of the ‘left’ are doing.
As an aside, it's interesting how you diminish helping your neighbors by reducing help to - ‘hold[ing] doors open for old ladies’ - which is obviously not what I suggested, but may fit your ideology well. I’ve been around long enough to know that some things are not possible – bringing down the MIC and the Empire by voting, yelling, complaining, marching, or wish-fulfillment for example – no more possible than the Iraqis bringing down Saddam, or the Russians ousting Stalin. And violent action against the US Empire will easily be smashed.
The Empire will die. It will commit suicide. Like all living things it has a life-span. It is already well on its way. My concern is already focused on what will follow – not that I’ll be around to see it. Historically, what usually follows ‘democracy’ - which we don’t have – is tyranny - not the apparent tyranny some may feel because they have to pay taxes or can't afford a Mercedes or the latest digital teat, but real tyranny where our lives are worth nothing.
If I think the fight against the ‘near enemy’ is far more likely to be efficacious than the fight against the ‘far enemy’ surely this is merely a matter of strategy and not personal worth.
You offer the offenses of the government as the spur to your righteous action. Fair enough. Then I could ask how you are fighting this evil here from a 'developing' country? My guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you've taken the same course as I have: helping people on a personal basis where you can and not on a 'cosmic' level - the only real help there is in the world. You do it there, I do it here. What's the difference?
"You’re right though: feeling empathy alone doesn’t make the world a better place. Doing something with that empathy to help people does."
Absolutely true. Actions - not words - are what define us. You're helping people where you are. I'm helping them where I am. What's your problem? I’ve paid my dues with action all my adult life and had numerous personal setbacks because of those actions - and don’t have to take a back seat to anybody. My conscience is clear.
“People on the left have something that you are obviously missing. When we think of people being affected by the policies of our government we don't abstract away from what is happening. We know that the people being harmed are NO DIFFERENT than the people in our neighborhoods. They have families, want to save for retirement, have a favorite bar they go to after work to relax, want to feel that they have control over their lives (which includes having a democratic government responsive to their needs and things like control over their economic system), etc. They aren't some caricature that the propaganda apparatus has created to make them appear less like us, to again abstract away from the fact that these are people not tons different than us and we're harming and killing them by the thousands. I say this as someone living in a developing country right now; these people aren't tons different than people I grew up with. Ignoring what your government is doing with your tax dollars is irresponsible, cowardly and selfish. Maybe I'm wrong, but almost always people like you are simply afraid of fighting against people, institutions and governments much more powerful than themselves and they take excuses for being cowards.”
People like me? You don’t know me or anything about me. But let’s see now, according to you I’ve missed something about ‘the left’ – whatever that is - I’m ignoring what ‘my’ government is doing, I'm a coward, irresponsible, selfish, afraid, and making excuses for my fear. I must be soooooo useless - why don’t I kill myself?
What the hell can you really do if much larger institutions and issues don't change? You can't do a damn thing locally really until national and international issues, institutions and policies are changed. If they change, who will be there to change them? If one system ends, how is another created? By each community working locally and ignoring the larger issues that connect people across international boundaries?
There certainly things you can do locally, but they are extremely limited until the larger issues beyond your local area are solved. We have NO control over our national government, and national economic policy. Local governments have even LESS control, and are more under the boot of international corporations and powerful economic interests.
Yes, the "empire" will collapse, there will be a power vacuum and who will step in? You and your local neighborhood? If you aren't international in scope, if you don't focus on the bigger issues, if you don't think about things like international economics, the political and military policies of your government outside your country, you will at best be a community with no power surrounded by other communities you can't control, all alone, all ignoring the larger issues of the day, all autonomous units. Unless you have a bigger scope you won't be able to change much. You can change some things, but you will be limited and you probably will only have a chance if other communities are more far sighted than you, you'll be a "free rider".
"People like me? You don’t know me or anything about me. But let’s see now, according to you I’ve missed something about ‘the left’ – whatever that is - I’m ignoring what ‘my’ government is doing, I'm a coward, irresponsible, selfish, afraid, and making excuses for my fear. I must be soooooo useless - why don’t I kill myself?"
Yes, people like you, people who make the exact points you're making. Do you think your ideas are unique to your brilliant mind? William Blum, a former State Department official, has shown that the US has been involved in overthrowing 70 governments since 1945. Chomsky and Herman did two, well documented books on the connection to US military and economic aid and horrible human rights records. They also compared US aid to countries who provided "good investment climates". They, along with many others, have shown that there is a positive correlation between US aid and horrible human rights records as well as US economic aid to countries whose economic policies have destroyed their countries. If you ignore this you are irresponsible, no doubt. If you know something you bear more moral responsibility than a person who doesn't to do something about it. I wouldn't suggest killing yourself though, I'd suggest re-thinking what you're saying and having a hint of humbleness.
"bringing down the MIC and the Empire by voting, yelling, complaining, marching, or wish-fulfillment for example"
This shows how little you've been involved in campaigns directly. Before the Korean war, the US public had a pretty good idea that there was a good chance the government would send troops. How wide of protests were there? Compare that to Iraq. 40 years ago, there WAS no environmental movement. It has grown steadily, starting far before the damage to the environment was so obvious, over the last few decades. How did the people of Latin America respond to the horrors of "free trade"? By ignoring it's international reach, by getting together to "yell, complain and march"? No, they educated, they got thrown in jail and they challenged people to get involved, and they have, they have more responsive governments and their lives have improved, they have far more direct power. People like you have benefited from what you're pissing on. What environmental movement would there be if everyone was simply local? What about arguments challenging the horror known as "globalization", which makes local government impossible? When it collapses, what takes it place? Whatever concentrated power exists, always international in scope, and their ideas come with it. That isn’t autonomous communities ignoring issues like war, international economics and corporate power. They get controlled by the very interests they're ignoring.
"If you aren't international in scope, if you don't focus on the bigger issues, if you don't think about things like international economics, the political and military policies of your government outside your country, you will at best be a community with no power surrounded by other communities you can't control, all alone, all ignoring the larger issues of the day, all autonomous units. Unless you have a bigger scope you won't be able to change much."
Give me one example of anyone fixing a problem 'international in scope' that didn't first create the amenable local conditions first. History has amply demonstrated that: being no functional international organizations that can impose 'solutions', actual change only occurs locally.
And on a more personal note, what is it you claim to be doing, wherever you are, that has results on an 'international' scope? Aren't your results local by definition?
"Before the Korean war, the US public had a pretty good idea that there was a good chance the government would send troops. How wide of protests were there? Compare that to Iraq."
Yes, and look at how successful that was in stopping the invasion of Iraq.
"People like you have benefited from what you're pissing on. What environmental movement would there be if everyone was simply local?"
"Yes, people like you, people who make the exact points you're making..."
'People like me'? Again you don't know me or my history so you make up a straw man more amenable to your prejudices. Get a grip and deal with reality.
"This shows how little you've been involved in campaigns directly..."
More personal invective. Nice going, Ace. Again, you don't know who I am or what I've done in my life. You just sound very frustrated and angry and makes you say ignorant things. But keep bloviating the way you do. I not only find it amusing, you just make my point for me.
Finally, what I find most revealing is that you assume that what I post defines my position on issues and ascribe to me your canned prejudices on that position. This place is a sounding board for ideas, and one can float an idea for discussion without having any attachment to it. You automatically assume that what I write is who I am - something of which you have no knowledge - and respond as if you do know me when you clearly don't nor can't. Such actions are defined in my Webster's Third International as ignorance. But keep swinging sonny, you'll hit something sooner or later.
"Give me one example of anyone fixing a problem 'international in scope' that didn't first create the amenable local conditions first."
First off, your argument isn't about creating local conditions for activism, you were saying that it is basically a waste of time and energy to FOCUS on issues outside of your local area. Look back at what you said. Everything is already international in scope, whatever happens is outside of local control. Locally you can simply react to what happens outside. Again, if you think ignoring what your government does far away makes logical sense, fine. We are, for better or worse, connected economically to people far away from you and we are part of the commons of the environment. You are denying reality with your positions. Don't attack people who disagree and don't assume that if you ignore this you'll have many options locally to do much of anything. If you aren't focusing, at least partially, on issues outside your direct area what you can do is limited.
"keep bloviating the way you do." YOU are saying this? Look at the length of your posts and the self righteous attitude you have. Give me a break.
" I not only find it amusing, you just make my point for me." I'm not, but it would good for you if I did. You need some help.
"Give me one example of anyone fixing a problem 'international in scope' that didn't first create the amenable local conditions first." People are active in the environmental movement that live in environmentally sound communities themselves. They are active on issues across the world from them. Why? The obvious fact that the environment is the commons and actions across the world can negatively affect you. This has nothing to do with local conditions. On endless amounts of conflicts, people will go to war zones and put their bodies in the way of the bullets and save lives. Movements in Latin America have seen their efforts furthered by being international in scope. If they ignore what the IMF, the US Treasury, is doing to their country and look locally what change can they foster? There are other endless examples. You're making an ahistoric argument, I'm sorry but you are.
"'People like me'? Again you don't know me or my history so you make up a straw man more amenable to your prejudices."
I'll say this again, I am saying people who make the same points as you. People like you. What the hell is your issue with this? I have no idea what kind of person you are, that isn't my point, as I explained. I ASSUME that the positions you take on issues are logically connected, that your outlook on the world is logically consistent and not contradictory. Any positions assumes some things and leads logically to others. You’ve written enough in your long posts for me to say what I have and, as I said, what you are saying is not unique or logically convincing.
"Yes, and look at how successful that was in stopping the invasion of Iraq." The point is that the movement has grown, and by the way has been more successful in other countries than here. There was activism in Spain that got a government thrown out for their policies in Iraq, same goes with economic and social issues in regions like Latin America. The movement has grown and, by the way, has been proven right. You're just proving your ignorance once again; things like this take decades to evolve, which it has.
"But keep swinging sonny, you'll hit something sooner or later." Give me a break. Like I said, try being humble, you aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are and the points you've made are weak and are not backed up by history. The only change that has happened, the only revolutions that succeeded, were international in scope. They realize that we are all connected, that when something happens thousands of miles away it very well can effect you and if your government happens to be powerful economically and military and your corporations are gigantic and politically connected, ignoring what is outside your direct area is nonsense suicide.
I'll repeat it: "Give me one example of anyone fixing a problem 'international in scope' that didn't first create the amenable local conditions first."
Still waiting. My guess is I'll be waiting a long time.
"First off, your argument isn't about creating local conditions for activism, you were saying that it is basically a waste of time and energy to FOCUS on issues outside of your local area."
Compared with the efficacy of focusing on local issues first, yes I think it is a waste of time to focus on 'international' issues first. My argument (notwithstanding your interpretation) is that any change happens first locally, and only with people working on their 'local problems. I can provide examples if you like and will as soon as you provide some examples to support your claim.
I suggest that without local conditions conducive to change - and local efforts to affect change - no change will occur. I suggest that people don't just get together from all the nations to change the world as you seem to suggest (example of this please if you have one) but they extrapolate their local experience outward. I wouldn’t call it a ‘waste of time’ for people to pretend that change first occurs 'internationally' without local precursors - but see no evidence that it works that way. But I am willing to accept an example of same should you provide one. So, convince me with an example.
"You're making an ahistoric argument, I'm sorry but you are."
Don't be sorry, but again, providing a historic example or some evidence to support your claim would be nice.
We can shoot barbs back and forth all day but there is a solution. Give one clear, uncontroversial example or any other bit of evidence (that pesky evidence thing again) to support your claim. And let me chew on that. Maybe I can agree.
But so far you have successfully avoided answering any of the questions I posted, providing any evidence for your claims, or actually responding to the issues I've raised. Nice job. . .Wilber. That short enough for you?
Having trouble getting started? I’ll prime the pump for you. Here’s some examples of activists pursuing ‘local’ solutions - without focusing on 'international' consequences to make my point.
Know anything about the labor history in the US? About all the strikes? Did any of the strikers ever make any demands concerning the plight of international workers? Or were they concerned with their own jobs and lives? Here’s a bit from The Fall of the House of Labor by David Montgomery, the leading historian of the labor movement:
“Working-class activists, and some individuals from other social strata who had linked their aspirations to the workers’ movement, persistently sought to foster a sense of unity and purposiveness among their fellow workers through the spoken and written word, strikes, meetings, reading circles, military drill, dances, athletic and singing clubs, and co-operative stores and to promote through those activities widely shared analyses of society and of paths to the ‘emancipation of labor.’ Both ‘history from the bottom up’ and the common fixation on great leaders have obscured the decisive role of those whom twentieth-century syndicalists have called the ‘militant minority’: the men and women who endeavored to weld their workmates and neighbors into a self-aware and purposeful working class.”
Note the reference to ‘their workmates and neighbors’ not workers in some other country. There exist no international pretensions evident in any of their writings and demands, only practical demands affecting their own lives. Workers who strike have little if any concern for what happens to other, international, workers. They are concerned primarily with their own jobs and lives. Local or international focus?
Know anything about rebellion in the US? How about Shay’s Rebellion in 1786 Massachusetts for example? Was the rebellion initiated by ‘activists’ interested in what was happening to oppressed individuals anywhere but their own small agricultural community? Or merely in what was happening in their lives? Local or international focus?
Know anything about the Civil Rights movement? Did the majority of ‘activists’ work and sacrifice for the blacks in Angola or Sudan? Or was it for the oppression they faced in America? Local or international focus?
How about South Africa? Did the AMC sacrifice and die for anyone but South African blacks? Local or international focus?
How about the Cuban revolution? Did Castro care about what happened anywhere but in Cuba? Perhaps some of his cadre had more grandiose ideas about extended revolution(Guevara or Cienfuegos) but there is no evidence at the time of the revolution that Castro did. So was he trying to change the world or merely what was happening in Cuba? Local or international?
These few of many examples provide enough example for me to hold the view I do that change must occur locally as a precursor to any 'international' change; in fact that all change occurs locally. This is not to say that the above provided or were examples for other activists in other nations, or they were influenced by examples by other nations, but that was not their concern; their concern was only an immediate solution to their own perhaps parochial problems.
However, if you have any examples to the contrary, please trot them out and I will gladly consider them in my apparently less than intelligent way. Or, if you have no such examples then please explain how you come to hold the view you do - that international consequences should be (must be?) the focus of activists? Barring either exigency. . .well, I think we both know what my suggestion might be then.
"Having trouble getting started?". What a pompous blowhard you are. I live 7,000 miles from the US and am very busy. It's obvious you think very highly of yourself, so I'll fill you in on something: If I take a bit to respond it's because there are things more important in my life than arguing with a poster named Tirebiter on Commondreams. Maybe I should feel blessed you're using your genius mind on little old me.
This is what you said in some posts above, "Do you honestly care that the Taliban run Afghanistan? I mean honestly? Did you care that Saddam ran Iraq for us? Or the Shah ran Iran for us? Or Batista ran Cuba for us? Or Marcos, Suharto, Franco, or any of the scores of usually right-wing dictators we supported over the years all over the world?" Yes, it is my damn tax dollars going towards killing innocent people, it is my tax dollars going towards providing good investment climates for businesses to drive wages down here and it is my tax dollars that are destroying other countries democratic systems, which is a means to that end. I would be insane not to. I’d be just as angry if my tax dollars killed you and people around you. What the hell is the difference? The distance from where I am? The people’s nationalities? Great argument.
I gave you examples of movements who focused beyond local neighborhoods, I can't help you if you cannot read. If you want to be a big boy and respond to them directly then go ahead, don't pretend I didn't give examples.
"How about the Cuban revolution? Did Castro care about what happened anywhere but in Cuba?" Are you freaking nuts?! Maybe you aren't aware of this. Batista was supported by the US. Multi-national corporations owned most of Cuba, along with the mafia. Castro, in order to shield his revolution, had to look to other socialist countries, principally the USSR, and thought that international revolution was NECESSARY to save the Cuban Revolution. Che agreed and wanted to start many Vietnams. Read his biography "My Life", he says as much. Castro was extremely busy, as was many social revolutionary regimes in the developing world, working at international conferences with other like minded countries on issues of common interest. He also had to defend his nationalizations of foreign owned business in Cuba in international forums. Why bother though, it’s all local. Maybe you also missed the international campaign in solidarity with South Africa (who was openly supported and protected by the US, Israel and Rhodesia, amongst others) that was instrumental in bringing down apartheid (well officially, Mbeki signed off on SA’s independence thanks to INTERNATIONAL economic deals he worked on). Maybe you also missed how important Cuba was to South Africa gaining independence. Have any idea how many Cubans fought for and died for South Africa, thousands of miles away? Have any idea what Mandela has said about Cuba, and what would have happened if this poor foreign country didn't come to their aid?
Not a single example you can give defends you argument. Every single leader, left right and center, is international in scope. Read Vijay Prashad's "A People's History of the Third World", or LS Stavrianos' "Global Rift". Bandung was the first real conference of the formerly Third World, made up of all of the developing countries across the ideological spectrum. They worked for years internationally at these conferences on common issues because they knew they were necessary, and they came to each other’s aid time and time again. Read Raúl Prebisch's work on economic development that had such relevance across the darker nations (Prashad's phrase) and the work the developing world did through UNCTAD, the Non Alignment movement, the World Social Forum, ALBA in Latin America, amongst other international forums. No movement exists only based on local issues, they are always, without exception connected to the outside. They die if they aren't. The local fight in Bolivia over water was an international spark that really gave fuel to the movement we now see in Latin America. Venezuela has bailed out Argentina and Bolivia by buying it’s debt and trying to rescue them from the IMF. Why? Have any idea? Maybe you should lend Chavez, Kirchner and Morales your brilliant mind and tell him why it is a waste of time.
If you work in the worker's movement, it is insane to focus just on local issues. If another country ditches its environmental laws to entice investors, if they get rid of worker's protections and if finance is liberalized in your country, guess what, you have no power on the local level, at all. Not a single bit. If you strike, the corporation will move to the next state, even better to a place that will pay a fraction as much on wages and they won't have to pay for environmental damage. Maybe you've been asleep for the last 40 years and haven't noticed this, you haven't noticed the race to the bottom thank to "globalization". Maybe you've missed corporations simply THREATANING to move (thanks in large part to INTERNATIONAL "free trade" deals) and getting large subsidies from local government to stay. Not to pay for healthcare for local residents, not to pay pensions, libraries or to fix bridges and roads. That's all being slashed. No, local governments pay taxes to corporations and the owners of professional sports teams (the owner of the Yankees is the best example) because they can move elswhere thanks to international economic deals and conditions outside the local area. David Cay Johnston has written two books about this in recent years if you’re interested. Maybe you've missed the stagnant wages in the US since the early 1970's. I'm sure you're too busy playing superior on the internet to notice the reality around you.
I'm not saying that local organizing is unimportant, not at all. If you do not pay attention to the actions of your government far away you won't be able to accomplish much at all, which is why every example you gave was international in scope and always will be.
If you ignore what rules the IMF, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the NAFTA trade tribunals, amongst others, say and what rules they create you have a few screws loose.
So all of the American labor activitists have been insane over the years. And the civil rights activists too? I wonder. From your 'response', my guess is that you know nothing about the history of the either movement in the US. Too bad. So sad.
All your rhetoric is certainly filled with heat, but you've yet to respond with any light other than labeling American labor and civil rights activists as 'insane' because they apparently didn't hold to your strategy. You have voiced numerous opinions of yours, of course, but that's neither evidence nor example.
"I'm not saying that local organizing is unimportant, not at all."
Fair enough. I agree.
"If you do not pay attention to the actions of your government far away you won't be able to accomplish much at all, which is why every example you gave was international in scope and always will be."
You keep saying so, but offer nothing to support your claim - save your claim; which sounds somewhat circular.
"I gave you examples of movements who focused beyond local neighborhoods, I can't help you if you cannot read."
To be fair, you list real problems that must be addressed if we aren't to be further buried in tyranny and I agree with your assessment. But your assessment of the problems does not actually offer a strategy to address the problems you list, or any organizations or activists using that strategy. None of your responses offer a 'roadmap' to a solution other than 'think internationally' which fits nicely on a bumper sticker but is not a strategy for change - unless of course you have some real examples to the contrary.
You offer descriptions of problems only, again, problems I agree with face. Please give an example of how an 'international focus' has addressed the problems you list or will address those problems; or any problems where 'activists' have focused on the 'international' consequences of their activism instead of the local consequences. What international mechanisms exist to fix the real problems you list? We are talking about fixing the problems aren't we, not merely identifying them?
Actually, I can, in my ignorant and unintelligent way offer an issue or two where it could be argued that in their campaign to address the issue activists have been 'thinking internationally' - even though they cannot act internationally (but must act locally) for change. (These efforts have so far been a failure, but they do exist.) So why can't you think of any?
But maybe you're right, you probably shouldn't waste your precious time trying to reason with someone as ignorant and unintelligent as I must be. You apparently know all the answers and have in your pocket all the truth. You will certainly have my vote when you run for god.
Perhaps you should slow down a bit, you sound very angry. Don't you find it detracts from your saving the world for us. . . Wilber?
Having fun yet? I sure am, thanks!
The Civil Rights movement was...local. You mean the activists from the North, some of which were killed, who went down to the South to fight in the Civil Rights movement? The national organizing that people like King did? I could have sworn he was killed organizing in a city, not his own, in which he was there supporting workers who were on strike. I could have sworn it was a national movement that was fighting the idea of "states rights", and wanted things like the 14th Amendment taken seriously. I could be wrong though. The labor movement has always been international in scope, always. If corporations are international, if the laws they create are internationally binding, if capital is as mobile as it is there is no choice. Who said, "Workers of the World Unite!"? Some would say he kind of influenced people’s thinking, no? What do you think the Second and the Socialist International was in decades past? Was communism, anarchism and more "moderate" forms like social democracy not international in scope? What was the attempts at Eurocommunism? How about the international involvement of leftists in the Spanish Civil War? Were there not hopes of workers uniting across national lines because of their common interests? There certainly are local issues with workers that require local solutions but they are never just local unless the economy is entirely local, which it never is. If the economy and capital is international what choice is there?
"You have voiced numerous opinions of yours, of course, but that's neither evidence nor example." You keep on saying this. PLAYING dumb doesn't win you arguments. I've given examples, from the various third world forums in which developing countries pushed their economic and social agendas (I gave two books, one of them over 900 pages, devoted to just this subject), to Venezuela buying other countries debt, to Cuba in South Africa, from the effects of globalization on workers' standard of living (and mentioned how this takes away national sovereignty, forget local governmental sovereignty) and their loss of power, the World Social Forum, ALBA (hell NAFTA and liked minded deals on the other hand), to the environmental movement in which people in relatively environmentally clean countries are involved (so the issues are not local, but because the environment is the commons, actions far away still effects them), to now mentioning radicals for decades working across international borders with other like minded people. I also talked about the international reach of the IMF, the Word Bank, the WTO and I'll throw in Wall Street, the Fed, the BIS, the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets as well as the power and size of the international financial markets which makes democracy basically impossible. I've given plenty of examples, so give up your nonsense. I’m done with this.
“Perhaps you should slow down a bit, you sound very angry. Don't you find it detracts from your saving the world for us. . . Wilber?”
Funny, I cracked a smile, which is laughing hysterically for me. I sound angry? Huh, read your self righteous lecturing and taunting of people who care about people just like you do. They deserved you attacking and lecturing them because they care about people farther away, in different countries, who are under far worse conditions thanks to your and my tax dollars than the people around you. Why would I be angry, because I’m surrounded by these people? Will my concern for them change when I come back to the states? It’s really easy to be self righteous when it is as abstract as it is with you.
“Who said, "Workers of the World Unite!". . .?”
Now you’re finally getting to it. I will still argue that the civil and labor rights movements were focused locally, that is, not internationally (which was the original bar you set) but there ARE examples to support your claim – but not until now have you actually presented any – which is all I asked for. Two other easy ones are the environmental movement and the anti-nuclear proliferation movement - both must have international focus since both problems transcend borders - even though activism, I would argue, must still be done locally. Had you not been so wound up in the passion of your rhetoric you might have come to the point far earlier and saved us both a lot of time. Personally I couldn’t care less about what you actually believe. I certainly don't have the corner on wisdom and don't think anyone has. My intention is always to provoke people, in this case you, into THINKING about what they (in this case you) believe and not merely reacting to contradiction – which you finally have. Congratulations. Don't like what I do? Too bad, that's what I do.
The examples you finally suggest can be argued to have an ‘international focus’, but again, I would argue that activism still must take place locally since individuals only have limited power for change. The powerful agents for greater, perhaps international, change are governments and their idea of change might not coincide with yours (ours?).
"I sound angry? Huh, read your self righteous lecturing and taunting of people who care about people just like you do."
Don't you mean I lecture and taunt people who DON'T think like 'I' do? You sound somewhat confused here.
"...It’s really easy to be self righteous when it is as abstract as it is with you.”
Your bleeding heart for all the people of the world makes you either a hypocrite, a liar, or a fool. You must be a relatively young man. I'm an old one. I've paid my dues in social and human rights causes since the 1960s and don't need to take a back seat to anybody in this respect.
Decades of experience have taught me the length of my reach. So what if you care about everybody if you can only help a handful nearby? Far better to care about what you can do something about than pretend that just because you claim to care about everybody you are somehow a 'superior' human being and it will make any difference in the real world. That ends up being mere ego-gratification, nothing more. Unless you can actually change things for those who need change your caring for them doesn’t make any difference. Neither you nor I have the power to change things for all the people in the world who need change, but perhaps we can help a few within our reach. So no, I don’t really care much about people I can’t help. Therefore I direct my caring locally, where I can actually address the problems.
I used to think like you, but found it pointless and hypocritical. Now I care only about what I can do something about. For all his flaws Stalin had one prescient statement attributed to him and I paraphrase: one death is tragedy, a million ones merely a statistic. I may be able to do something to prevent one or a few tragedies, but I am powerless, as my guess is you are, to prevent a million tragedies – for all you may claim to care. Being emotionally fixedated on what you can't change is self-destructive. And fixing the problem, not feeling morally self-righteous is the goal, isn’t it? Or is it?
Since I finally got what I wanted this shall be my last post on the matter. Should you want to reply one last time, I will gladly read your comments. In the future we may cross words again. I look forward to it.
"My Life" is Castro's biography, extremely interesting. It wasn't clear from what I posted.
? Then put your money where your mouth is my friend and volunteer, the Empire needs folks like you to help out in Afghanistan, don't you know there is a shortage of troops?. We need to teach those poor savages the ways of Western Civilization, even if we have to slaughter thousands of their women and children to do it. It is for their own good after all.
Sioux Rose
TIRE BITER: Your historical analysis here is fairly on, but the thing it lacks is COMPASSION for the women. No one suffers more under those repressive theocratic arrangements than the women. Laura Bush tried to make her man look good as if he gave a shit about the status of women in that Taliban-mocked nation; but that was of course just P.R. If you read the stories of women under house arrest, or how young girls are pretty much traded as property, you would be a little less cavalier about "letting them resolve it themselves." It goes back to that "Pottery Barn" rule as per whomever broke it holds the obligation to fix it. And since the U.S. played a game with the Soviets and the Taliban took over from there, our nation holds plenty of responsibility for the resulting fate of women. (Not to say America has an inkling about the cultural mores that WOULD work in that region.)
There is a common denominator that stains history and it involves religions where men rule and create the laws they expect women to follow. Generally in these patriarchal top-down authoritarian systems only a few have power, and they're almost always the males; and they tend to promote force/violence to retain their own power while condemning so many others to lives of quiet desperation alternating with very loud misery. Sure like Mafia wives a few women benefit from these systems, but they reflect the ethos of Mars and HIS rules, and have NOTHING to do with God. Too many equate the angry jealous god of war with "God," and that's why I so often bring in the wisdom of the astro-logos as it identifies the TWELVE sacred aspects, or archetypes that taken as a whole represent our best understanding of The Infinite.
Re cyon June 16th, 2009 1:07 pm,
who asks "Does anyone recall what life under the Taliban was like? Was that better than the status quo?", but is careful to note that "I don't know myself..."
If the Taliban had been raining death and destruction from on high for 7 years, I'm sure the corporate media would have mentioned it by now. So we can safely assume it was better than the status quo today.
But the unasked question is "What makes it the US's business what kind of government the Afghanis are willing to tolerate?" My response, having witnessed---and paid dearly for---too many "humanitarian" interventions, invariably in places with resources our corporations coveted: let them sort it out.
Rather than prattle on about "freedom and democracy" over there, how about we spend some time and energy on restoring it here?
We should do in Afghanistan and Iraq what we should have done in Viet Nam: declare victory and leave. An apology would be nice too.
"So we can safely assume it was better than the status quo today."
I think you better check that assumption. Life was hell, especially for women.
From cyon's previous post:
"Was that better than the status quo? I don't know myself..."
From the post of 2:46pm:
"Life was hell, especially for women."
So now you know? You're a quick study.
Re Tirebiter and socialist:
Wow, if I'd read your posts first, I'd have been saved the bother of composing mine. Well said.
Oil - HEROIN - Imperialism - And Strategic Military Bases are the TRUE Reasons we Are in Afghanistan. We Are NOT There to Liberate the People of Iraq or Afghanistan - We are ONLY There to Liberate them from THEIR Natural Resources and from as well as an ENDLESS Supply of HEROIN (that Our government is a major supplier of - it keeps the BOGUS Drug War alive).
We The People NEED to DEMAND We Stop Being the Imperialist Police of The World. We Cannot even take care of ourselves but we pretend we can take care of the entire world.
Bogus. They are Using these excuses as DISTRACTIONS.
The so called enemy combatants are ONLY outraged and fighting us because we are on THEIR land! How would you react if we were being occupied here in America?
I am damn sure you would defend your homeland from the Imperial giants.
Say NO To WAR Funding!
Ron Paul was and still is Right! RON PAUL 2012 for REAL CHange and REAL Peace!
I agree, but not with the Ron Paul bit. I respect his stance on imperialism, however he does not have a sense of social or economic justice.
Well if Individual Rights aren't a sense of social justice then I don't know what is.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian which means he is not going to say you can or cannot do something - He may personally be against an issue, but he realizes it is NOT the power of the Federal Government to make these decisions.
And if the "federal" reserve would stop printing money - inflation's hidden tax would stop weakening the purchasing power of the dollar and Everyone would have more monetary power.
So in reality Ron Paul DOES have the correct stance on Social and Economical issues - it is the twisting of these issues by the Duopoly parties and all the so called "experts" that make the people think we need BIG Government holding our hands to do everything we do in life.
great, tell that to Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Gloria La Riva, Jarrod Bell et al.. Sorry, I for one will never vote for Ron Paul, as much as I agree with his stance on imperialism. If you read the posts of others on this site, you will likely get a similar opionion, CD is not exaclty a hotbed of Ron Paul supporters.
If we had a government that served the people we would not need to fear it, however sadly we do not.
You would be surprised but actually Ralph Nader and Ron Paul recognized not only their differences but actually their common ground when they met last year. I voted for Kucinich in the Democratic Primary and Paul in the Republican Party last year. Paul isn't perfect but if you compare him on the issues to most Democrats, you'd be surprised.
that aint sayin much is it? Sorry, never will I vote for Ron Paul. And if you think Dennis K. is the same as Paul, that only demonstrates your ingorance.
I didn't say that you had to vote for Ron Paul but at least compare on the issues. And no, I did not say DK was the same as RP.
If George Bush was still president and requesting these funds, would you be against it? What makes Obama's request any different from George Bush's past requests? He doesn't seem to be conducting the wars any differently. After all, Gates is still SecDef, now General "Torture" McChrystal in in charge of Afghanistan, and they're still killing dozens of innocents with drones. I don't want my dollars going to this unconscionable war, and I don't want this war being waged in my name.
How about changing the word "should" in the title to MUST? There's a big diffrence between MUST and SHOULD. "Should" doesn't mandate anything whereas MUST makes it crystal clear and gives a strong sense of the need to follow and/or enforce.
As I write this comment, I do not know whether the war supplemental bill will or will not pass. Regardless, I don't see that it's time for the anti-war community to celebrate anything like a SUSTAINABLE congressional anti-war majority. The bulk of the votes in opposition to the supplemental will have come from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, in other words "fiscal conservatives" opposed to the war only on the basis of its ruinous costs. It will come from what may appear in hindsight to have been Pelosi's poor strategy in attaching to it an amendment for IMF funding "without conditions," gathering some support from members of Congress from heavily unionized labor districts in which NAFTA and by extension the neo-liberalism built into the IMF are very unpopular. In the campaign leading up to the voting, Pelosi (with no doubt a big assist from Obama) was described as "peeling away" opposition votes from among Democrats who might have been disposed to vote in opposition. With a big trough full of "stimulus funding" that might still be distributed at the discretion of the President to whatever congressional districts might support the supplemental votes, the "peeling" that Pelosi can do, with future votes (like perhaps a supplemental war funding bill without an attached IMF albatross) if not this one, can make a Democrat in Congress as well-pelled as a Yankee after 10 straight hours in the Florida sun.