Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Movement to Make Obama Bring an End to War
In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal.
Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said.
Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong.
We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents.
When Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy, he said "Start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future." But Obama's 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war.
Obama was once asked about how he planned to solve the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. He responded by telling a story about Franklin Roosevelt who, when asked if he could address the plight of African Americans, said:
You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit....But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it.
It's the president's job to make the best decisions he can and keep
the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly
divisive issues like the war, he's got to consider many factors --
including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on
the situation. It's the public's job to create the political space for
him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted
to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go
out and "make him do it."
We're working with state blogs from across the country to sound the call to action:
| Square State (Colorado) Turn Maine Blue (Maine) Michigan Liberal (Michigan) Burnt Orange Report (Texas) Green Mountain Daily (Vermont) |
| Not Larry Sabato (Virginia) My Left Nutmeg (Connecticut) Blue Mass Group (Massachusetts) Calitics (California) The Albany Project (New York) Blog for Arizona (Arizona) |
There is a movement growing now to create the climate for change to occur. If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice in working with President Obama to shape our nation's future.
70 Comments so far
Show All"make me"
classic schoolyard taunt.
If you think everyone should vote, please read this.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/24213/26/
So rosemary, you think only the Correct People should vote. People like you I assume you meant, unless you meant you should not be allowed to vote. That is neat. Are you also in favor of eugenics?
Curious too, I guess you cast a vote which actually changed something for the better, great, may I ask who you helped elect or, I suppose, defeat?
Congratulations on your success in the US political arena, in creating positive change by voting where others failed, please share how you did it!
PS, Nader is a great, fine man, but not one of the 3/4th's of a million votes he got has spared one Afghan mother from a US missile strike.
The Demoks have been "shacking up" with their Repuk bed-mates in the extreme right gutter for years now, writing an endless stream of blank checks for war. So Nader voters did the most anyone could do at the voting booth for Afghani civilians and the rest of the elites' victims. The third party vote remains the only real electoral strategy.
Some of the comments here seem to be in defense of uninformed voters. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR CASTING AN UNINFORMED VOTE!
There might be excuses for being uninformed - poverty, overwork, sickness, lack of interest, lousy school system, ... Therefore, you should join me in the "Please don't vote movement". People who are not informed should be encouraged to stay home on election day. An uninformed vote can cancel out the vote of a citizen who has done his homework.
no worries, your vote is largely symbolic in our system anyway. We have election fraud and a corrupt election and campaign system, where organized, big-money interests call the shots. I would not get all worked up about this until we have overhauled the system to resemble a more democratic process
I am sick of this garbage...we have to make him do it with sentiments like these:
"But Obama's 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war."
If you don't realize you were duped by now--and no matter of begging and cajoling and shouting and vowing to "hold his feet to the fire" is going to make a difference, then all is futile. The Right, now left toothless and irrelevant hasn't got to say more than "boo" to get Obama crawling for scraps of their approval. This rallying call that it is up to us is a deflection and a distraction from facing the unthinkable reality---Obama is carrying the Bush torch and the evidence reinforces that with each passing moment. Everytime Obama claims that "single payer may work for other countries but it is n't the American way", he echoes Bush. When he speaks to those who challenge him, and claims "that he he was doing it from scratch" he would start with single payer, I feel like saying, well we can't abolish slavery because it is the American way and we can't start from scratch...
For us to appeal to Obama, who treats us with scorn, is like demanding us to pressure Bush.
They got their blood money by threatening to withold funding for antiwar candidates and enough of them caved. Why is it, since the Democrats, now the majority, can't use the Republicans as the excuse for why they can't do anything, can expect the Blue Dogs to predictably fall into line with the Republicans--and they are never threatened or punished in any way. Those antiwar Dems who lined up behind Obama's war are toast. They lost the street and if they think that Emmanuel is going to reward them when there is a NeoLib Zionist warmonger choice, they are so over.
It's over.
TV now controls most American's opinions.
Ergo "they," will not make anyone do anything. They are content to cheerlead hatred and war.
China Russia and Iran, India, will control central Asia soon.
By bankrupting America. It is in the works-Eff the worthless dollar.
But God Help the Elites when the Fox News set loses THEIR double-wide, pick-up, jobs and life.
When they lose their double-wides, recliner-couches, wide-screens, which they will soon, the "elites," are gonna get turned into fertilizer, and what wealth is left in the US will be redistributed downward and outward.
I ain't young, and I might live to see it.
The US is following the script Marx predicted to a T. We will be the 1st industrial-imperiailst-capitalist economy to see it's wealth redistributed downward by FORCE.
Our Revolution is Near. And it won't come from a few protesters, God Bless them mightily, it will come when the middle and lower classes spontaneously riot and storm the gates.
Last night I had the strangest dream
I'd ever dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war
I dreamed I saw a mighty room
Filled with women and men
And the paper they were signing said
They'd never fight again
And when the paper was all signed
And a million copies made
They all joined hands and bowed their heads
And grateful pray'rs were prayed
And the people in the streets below
Were dancing 'round and 'round
While swords and guns and uniforms
Were scattered on the ground
Last night I had the strangest dream
I'd never dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war.
-Ed McCurdy
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGXsk
regarding politicians, with the sheople, anything can be done.
"If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice"
We on the far-left have been waiting for the wayward children to come home. In the meantime, lots of space over here!
keepitsimple
It is disconcerting to read posters with a penchant for believing in "honest" elections. Even IF the media was allowed to equally endorse all candidates, haven't we had some very bloody experiences with elections being stolen??
No, we can not aspire to vote "change" with this venal system. It must be wiped clean of all operatives who are service-to-elite and service-to-self oriented.
And damages for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan??
This world could easily provide prosperity for all, if the vampires' coffins were emptied and their usurious debts invalidated.
Surely, anyone who has retained a rational mind, understands that the physical, mental and spiritual survival of mankind is at stake! We must ignore the constant bombardment of fear, and develop a love-centered response for the well-being of all. Along with positive enterprise, our collective thoughts and projections can produce tremendous power. But first, we have to believe that we deserve our own sovereignty.
I hope she can pull it off, but the FDR quote about "make me do it" just makes me laugh. When over 75% of us spoke loud and clear about the TARP we were ignored. I read that one Congressman said half his calls and e-mails said No Bailout, the other half said Hell No! If Obama couldn't hear that (he knew better because Robert Rubin told him so. Unfortunately, so did Bufffett and Volcker), I don't think he cares about this or anything else the establishment dislikes.
One of his failings is he really doesn't have much experience making real change.
FIGHT WAR Countries will some day erect museums to show the atrocities we have committed... taking the word "freedom" as our purported purpose... can I say use the word Freedom in vain, or is that too sacrireligious?
Do you suppose that one day in those countries we have invaded and killed many, injured many, destroyed lives, etc. that one day, those countries will erect a museum
like the Holocause Museum in New York.... and who will
be the killers, torturers...
I suppose that Germans have awful feelings when they see the horrors wreaked upon the populations of Jewish, gypsies, "mentally or physically unfit" ... What will be our feelings and our future generations feelings when they see a musuem dedicated to showing "the American Way"?
A few decades ago I had a long conversation with a German girlfriend who wondered how damaging Americans found being part of a country so deeply engaged in terror and atrocity as the United States. When I countered by mentioning the Holocaust to her, she replied that while the Holocaust had certainly been terrible, it was a lesser event than the War in Indochina.
She expressed surprise and considerable suspicion when I did not agree. I offer her arguments as nearly as possible without judgment:
---- Americans invaded Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia
---- Americans regularly engaged in torture and mutilation
---- Americans direct MOST violence against civilian populations
---- American violence was racially directed
She held that American actions shared all that with the Third Reich. She Felt the following added to American guilt:
---- Americans used dragontooth and similar bombs that keep killing still
I had to give her that.
---- Americans used chemical warfare like white phosphorous and Agent Orange that kills, maims, & impoverishes still.
To my objections, she acknowledged that gassing Jewish civilians constituted chemical warfare, horrifying violence against innocent civilians, and racially directed violence. However, she pointed out, gassing people is the way the US chooses to kill with as little cruelty as possible. The American use of chemicals, on the other hand, did not kill cleanly, and the Americans were willing to kill many, many people in order to kill a few that they wanted dead.
Moreover, she insisted, the American actions in Asia often subjected populations to ongoing health problems for generations afterward -- a perfectly predictable circumstance of America's customary arms, she added.
Moreover, she continued, the American government obviously had nothing against directing such violence against its own people, since it regularly sent troops into the poisons it had delivered, and had even subjected civilian populations and even its own troops to extensive nuclear exposure for the sake of experiment as well.
Had the conversation happened 20 years later, I suspect she might have mentioned delayed American casualties from chemicals and DU ammo in Gulf I as well.
---- Fewer people were involved.
Yes, her figure for holocaust victims was about 6 million. I pointed out that many figures don't give that much to the entire Indochina conflict during the years of direct American involvement, and said that I thought figures for victims of German invasions ought to be included. She countered that no one knows who dies under a bomb, and pointed out that we had been primarily discussing killings within a sphere of influence. The US already dominated Vietnam and most of Asia when the conflict started. Germany in the '30's had no such relation with the rest of Europe.
---- Though certainly racist before the war, Germany had conceived "the final solution" and even the war itself under duress, whereas the US had engaged in it at the height of economic prosperity.
Frankly, I had no answer for that.
Interesting, isn't it?
The Holocaust was horrible, horrible beyond facile integration if not just horrible beyond all belief. But apparently it is not sufficiently horrible to be clearly beyond American experience.
That German girlfriend had a number of misunderstandings.
First, the official count on the Holocaust is 11M people, of whom 6M were Jews. The most common references to the Holocaust subscribe to the myth that approximately half the deaths are not worth mentioning.
The total body count due to Germany in WW2 was certainly higher than due to the US in SE Asia, by maybe a factor of 2 or 3, but almost certainly less than 10.
Use of the gas chamber as a method of execution in the US was not driven by humane considerations. Reports are it is quite painful, but not for a long time. It is used so the corpse is not mutilated so the executioners (not just the technicians, but jurors, jailers, judges, prosecutors, and the public) could feel better about it.
The idea that the US has directed most violence against civilians as opposed to enemy military is true at least some of the time. What is certainly true, is that during WW2 the US and UK used mass aerial bombings of civilians as a main war fighting strategy. For centuries, mass slaughter of civilians had been considered had been considered too savage a tactic to use against civilized people. (It was accepted against "savages".) Since then, the US determined this was a counterproductive strategy in terms of winning war. Compared to that, extreme sloppiness (killing at a few hundred or less at a time as "collateral" damage associated with some military objective has been considered by the US as morally acceptable because it is nowhere as bad as the tens of thousands per attack that happened in WW2, where the US was a "good guy". As a general rule, indiscriminate slaughter by the US military has been justified as to protect itself from a suspected enemy; to put this in other words, the civilians in countries the US chooses to attack are expected to be much physically braver than US military personnel. I call this the collective cowardice doctrine, as, while individuals are expected to be brave when forced to be, collective they are quite cowardly.
Overall, the German girlfriend was primarily incorrect in detail, but right on the money in substance.
Sioux Rose
BARDAMU: Thank you for sharing this post. It's very interesting. I suppose if the figures for Vietnam, Iraq, and other nations caught in our military's sight are placed together, we come close to Hitler's numbers. And one thing that can be said for the German people, they aimed to LEARN from their carnage. They did not keep repeating it over and over again. Historians might argue that the nation was too badly bruised from the outcomes of WW I and WWII to endeavor to repeat its former imperialistic notions; but the U.S. moves from region to region leaving a toxic, deadly legacy behind and continues on the same diabolical path. Perhaps geography helps to explain it. Given our nation's distance from other lands, we are REMOVED from the carnage. And thus far, the U.S. has never really known defeat. Since it has invested chiefly in weaponry, it's unlikely to know a direct military defeat (although the outcomes of guerilla wars are toss-ups at best); but it does appear that a fiscal one is in the cards and rapidly approaching. When I think of all the squandered treasure, the lost lives, the broken dreams, although I grieve for all those who do not deserve this fate, the nation as an entity has sinned much against other lands and persons, and owes a phenomenal debt to the KINGDOMS of nature, as well. Because when its people asked for a mandate of change instead the NEW leader, the man from hope, betrayed this confidence by continuing an escalation of war, the karmic boomerang is headed our way. For too long our nation has been given a pass by the lords of karma. I see a major phase of testing for this nation and it will easily last until 2015.
We already have the Native American Genocide, but we rather point to the atrocities of other countries, not our own.
The voters are getting exactly what they voted for. Obama called for an increase in the military during his campaign. How could anyone think that he was a "Peace" candidate?
The voters had a choice. On my ballot there were 8 candidates for president. 5 of the 8 were for peace. The lack of responsibility of the voters is mind boggeling. And now comes the denial of any responsibility from the voters.
The 'always-blame-somebody-else' kind of thinking is how we got where we are. It's easy to blame the guy in the White House. Harder to blame the guy in the house next door.
There has to be a leader and there has to be a path. I don't think people vote stupid (well, some do) but the 2 parties just suck the air out and play the us against them card very well.
We need Instant Runoff Voting if we are to get anywhere. Then, people will vote for 3rd parties and can keep their umbilical cords tethered to the Big 2, until weaning. We will start to see Progressives,Libertarians and others winning more and more local races. I'm just most afraid that it's too late.
The voters are uninformed, uneducated, delusional and easily swayed by propaganda.
Americans are so used to being lied to they believe what they are told by politicians and the media. John McCain was a throw away candidate (like Michael Dukakis was back in the day). Obama was touted as a new savior. The people who believed this most are the ones who spent the election cycle glued to their TV's. The "Change" they could believe in was mostly in the Kool Aid. It's wearing off now. It was fascinating to watch the build up to the primaries when Hillary Clinton said she wanted to "fight corporate power". I'm sure she says that at the Bilderberg meetings! The Democratic candidates were clamoring for support from the left during the primaries - once they got it and the "savior" was chosen, they dumped us. Next election, I hope that somebody askes Obama "Why should anyone believe campaign promises?" But of course someone like that won't be "chosen" by the corporate media to speak.
Sioux Rose
R.GIRL: Your observation is true; but please consider this: you have a low income couple, he works in a shop all day, she works at a supermarket or restaurant and when they get home they have to make dinner, get the kids ready for school, make sure their car is operating, that the clothes are washed, that the bills and utilities are paid, etc. By the time they can sit at the TV they want to relax and feel that they can count on the news to deliver to them what they need to know.
I have a lot of time relative to most people so I can do the work of becoming better informed; but I know of fairly intelligent people who work long hours and they do NOT want to seek news on the Internet. In fact, they are poorly informed, but continue to believe in all the TV "brand names" (like CNN); and so when I bring the FACTS to their attention, they make me feel like I inhabit an alternative universe. It's gotten that bad. In other words being poorly informed is getting a LOT of help from the MSM, and it's a contrived campaign to keep citizens out of the loop, and VERY dangerous.
Sioux Rose,
You are right that many people don't have the time or the inclination to educate themselves, and it's getting more dangerous all the time.
Some people have said that we CDers are all preaching to the choir and wasting our time here when we should be doing something else. But, everything I know about government corruption I learned because someone said or wrote something that resonated with me and made me more curious.
I remember in 1979, I saw some grafitti that said "Down with the Shah" and I asked someone what that meant - I had no idea. He told me that the US had installed the Shah of Iran as a puppet and that the CIA was involved in torturing dissonents.
That eventually lead me to go to a movie called "On Company Business" and I learned about all sorts of horrible things the US government has done. Then when Reagan was president, I read in the cover of the New York Times that his so called "freedom fighters" in Central America were gang raping women and murdering people. It goes on and on. I had to explain to a recent college graduate what water-boarding is. The information is right there in people's faces and they are just in denial because it is so terrible. I don't have the ability to fight in the streets - but I have a big mouth and I tell everyone I know what's going on.
I just had a friend (whith kids, job and the same sort of responsibilities you mention) tell me the other day that he didn't realize how bad global climate change really is - until he saw the movie "The 11th Hour". The fascists control the news media, but word of mouth is a great force. Some people I know who voted for Bush - are in denial that they ever did anything so stupid - so there is a change of some sort happening.
Sioux Rose
R GIRL: To members of the Bahai faith the teacher is one of the highest callings. Some say we can only teach by example, so I try to walk my talk. I never miss an opportunity to educate where I can; but closed-minded people can get VERY angry and defensive if they are exposed to data they can't relate to, or have been taught to avoid/ignore/denigrate. If we made the analogy that Truth = our atmosphere, then it is THAT medium that is now so overtly polluted that many cannot see through the din to arrive at, no less discern, what Truth is! THAT is indeed the danger, and I see an analogy between the corporate controlers who rendered the atmosphere this way, and those who similarly take of nature's pure substances and meld them to genetically modified COUNTERFEITS. This loss of the REAL, the genuine, is hitting all aspects of our lives, and many have become the emotional equivalent of robots as a partial result. True feelings are also cut off in too many. I think of this as a metaphor for why the US has such high levels of HEART disease. If only it had taken Cheney as NATURE intended.
You have part of the situation correct. However the corporate media decide who gets on TV and newspapers and TV is still the place where the vast majority get their info. If it costs millions of dollars to run ads and you don't have corporate support, you don't get on TV, period. All those candidates you mentioned other than the D and R were virtually shut out of debates and coverage. When they did make it into the msm, very few times indeed, they were smeared, mis-represented and cast as the lunatic fringe.
So, in practical terms, how can anyone vote for someone they have never heard of? Just because you or I voted non Duopoly, how does the system allow for the vast majority of voters to even know their name? Face it, this is a very shallow form of democracy which is largely a sham. As the book title says it is the "Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Don't have a couple hundred million in cash? Too bad, you aint gettin elected.
A certain amount of personal responsibility is called for, however blaming victims is not helpful either.
Sioux Rose
SOCIALIST: Excellent post. Someone published a study that cited that that 9 times out of 10 the candidate that spends the most wins. It takes an independently wealthy individual like Perot to launch his own campaign, the rest of us are mostly marginalized even if we have the requisite will, vision, and good intentions.
dream on.
and on and on and on and on . . .
hamsher/greenwald state:
It's the president's job to make the best decisions he can and keep the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he's got to consider many factors -- including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation. It's the public's job to create the political space for him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go out and "make him do it."
i'm not sure, hamsher/greenwald, that baracktar's paying attention to any of us, but an idea has surfaced as to what it takes to get his sorry-assed undivided attention. and i am quite sure that the idea would not be looked upon favorably.
When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he's got to consider many factors -- including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation.
Obysmal must also worry about keeping the climate coming down his throat. Nobody's got to tell him that if he crosses the MICC he might die an unusual death at an early age. Never disturb a hungry dog while it's feeding.
It is okay for a soldier to risk his life for his country, but a president can't act because they might kill him?
Better to die with your head held up rather than live a long life on your knees.
Yeah, and a hungry rabid dog at that.
I just called my wimpy freshman reps. office.Not much hope there, he will vote for funding ,and the nice sweeteners I.M.F. bail out(bank rescue overseas)50k bonuses for 'stopgap draftees'(i like that one),clunker money $ 4500 to trade in your clunker on a new car if it gets 10 mpg more .My two Senators won't even discuss McGoverns withdrawal date bill for AFPAC.So Jane and Robert my heart is with you but I am not holding my breath praying for Democrats to grow a spine or honor thier oaths or promises.It looks like a huge mercenary army 100,000 ? will occupy Afghanistans' plains and mountains along side of 67,000 some odd U.S. 'vollunteer 'soldiers .....indefinately.
I wonder if many of the foreign citizens in the contractor armies will speak the Pashtun laungauges ,or abide by any legal standards.Will they have more accountability then a robotic drone?My congress critter doesn't and he's just a tad cheaper. peace
RichM writes:
"In "Peter Pan," there's a scene where Tinkerbell gets sick, & her elfin glow begins to fade. Kids all over the world are asked to help Tink by clapping their hands. And what do you know, it turns out that it works -- Tink is restored to health, just because all the kids "believe."
Oblabla's more . . . Pinnochio, another Disney tale with a supernatural, if tiny, flying female fairy. Take TODAY's news, for example:
"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies."
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house
Get a clue, kids: this addled opportunist is Bush, with bigger ears.
"...But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it..."
- This cloying little anecdote, which has been repeated ad nauseum since the election, is the quintessential liberal delusion.
In "Peter Pan," there's a scene where Tinkerbell gets sick, & her elfin glow begins to fade. Kids all over the world are asked to help Tink by clapping their hands. And what do you know, it turns out that it works -- Tink is restored to health, just because all the kids "believe."
Now it would be nice if the world worked like that. But even if liberals desperately want to believe otherwise, real-world societies don't work like fairy tales. They are systems structured to behave in highly consistent & predictable ways. They respond with clock-like regularity to well-defined sets of stimuli. In the US, these stimuli have nothing to do with the will, rights, or well-being of the general population; nor with conceptions like peace, justice, or international law.
The US is an imperialist nation with the most powerful war machine in history. The war machine is not just a "part" of the society; it defines in large measure what the society IS. Policy is determined not by the affable personality of the telegenic president, nor by emails of voters. It's determined by the strategic interests of the ruling groups. To believe US militarism can be affected by some e-mails from "concerned citizens" is to believe that the whole elaborate mechanism works like a Disney cartoon.
It doesn't work like that. The US need for endless military conflict arises from the very foundations of the social structure. It's the inevitable consequence of that structure, & can't be affected without fundamentally overhauling that structure.
FDR's 'make me do it' implied a lot more than 'some e-mails from "concerned citizens"'. It implied effective political pressure, and there are all kinds of ways if the people wanted to get out of their air conditioned SUVs and demonstrate a little civic responsibility and some higher ethics.
The people can set conditions for elites to earn their votes in 2010 and switch their votes to third party if conditions are unmet.
They can flood reps phone/email lines, march in the streets, boycott, all the usual non-violent protest channels, to make the public servant serve the public. When the people get some responsibility the elites will be frantic.
The Demoks are more easily persuaded so an opportunity exists today. The Repuks will call out the brownshirts, so then we shift to the boycott, and other tactics to persuade their little reptilian brains. A general shift of the ownership of production from giant corporations to small farmers, craftsmen and merchants in a coop network is the elites' worst nightmare.
Sioux Rose
RICH: I was hoping to see you provide feedback in response to Chris Hedge's most pejorative piece about the U.S. economy relative to our failing dollar. I missed your incisive insights on that thread if they were posted?
Hi SR - I didn't post on that thread. But FWIW, I think Hedges is qualitatively, but not quantitatively, right. That is, there are certainly strong forces pushing the dollar lower. Hedges mentions them. But there are also strong forces which support the dollar. It's not just a quasi-moral question of America's bad character & criminality "finally giving the US what it deserves" & being reflected by a lower dollar.
For the dollar to collapse, another currency would have to replace it as the global reserve. There isn't any other currency that can do that, yet. And even our rivals & enemies keep buying the dollar, to keep their own currency low, to help their export industries.
Also, everyone knows that if they do anything rash (like selling huge amounts of their dollar holdings), they could start an avalanche that would bring down the whole global financial system, which would hurt everyone, including those who started the avalanche. So no one is going to do that. They're too scared of the consequences.
Yesterday, all world stock markets went down sharply. But the dollar went UP. The minute everyone gets frightened, they are still buying dollars. That happened back in the fall, and in December thru March, too -- while the US stock market was tanking. // So, I don't think the US dollar will collapse anytime soon. People have been talking about this very possibility for years, & it still hasn't happened. It's similar to worrying about big US govt deficits. People have been frightened about the out-of-control deficits since the Reagan admin. But it hasn't yet led to disaster. (Yes, we're fairly near disaster now. But it isn't because of the deficits, or a collapsing dollar.)
Sioux Rose
RICH M: I so appreciate your contributions to this forum, and thank you for taking the time to answer this question. I can sleep easier now!
I have to agree with RichM here, and big-ups Rich for reminding us of the macro side of U.S. militarism. It's near impossible to address micro situations, such as the war supplemental that's being voted on in the House today, without facing up to the larger structural issues and levers of power that direct the government to wage continuous wars. It's really through this prism of the larger picture that effective citizen-driven strategies (such as direct action) become more clear. I mean, don't go and tell me that all of the doctors and nurses haunting the committee room these past weeks didn't have something to do with Baucas being forced to talk about a single payer health care plan. Sustained direct action does have an impact over time. If this is what the author is getting at by bringing up Roosevelt's "make me do it" line, great. But there is definitely a lack of big picture context to his article that undermines much of what he's saying.
Lol! Yes, Baucus talked about it and immediately dismissed it.
End of story.
Oregoncharles
An unnamed Bush administration official talking to reporter, Ron Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times ..."
Another annoying analogy used by the Obamapologists, "Well it takes a long time to turn around an aircraft carrier, so give him time."
I did a little research and apparently an aircraft carrier can make a 180 degree turn within minutes, and in emergencies some estimate within 60 seconds. We are now in an emergency but it's full steam ahead for the US Empire and Obama is reveling in his new role as Commander.
Boy....I wonder what the people that don't like us say!
elohim writes:
"Just say no! It really is that simple!"
And look out: Oblabla is voicing "deep concern" on . . . let's see, the election in Iran.
"Deep" has served Oblabla well: in 2001, He was opining, in Chicago, that the Constitution has "deep flaws". In the campaign, Fox was "deeply irresponsible", and He was "deeply disappointed" in Father Michael Pfleger for mocking Hillary Clinton (whom Oblabla said would be a "deeply flawed" Democratic nominee), "deeply disappointed" in John McCain for not rushing to defend Oblabla's wife from some slight, Later, He was "deeply humbled" to be endorsed by Colin Powell, asked Biden to be "deeply involved" in the campaign, was "deeply disappointed" in Bill Richardson (and others). Lately, He was “deeply saddened” when a U.S. soldier shot and killed five fellow soldiers at a counseling center, and "deeply concerned' at North Korea's sentencing of two US journalists.
Oh yeah: He was "deeply concerned" over Gaza in January.
Good catch!
And like all mendacious Newspeak, the term denotes its opposite:
Deep as a gasoline slick on a mud puddle.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Wow! I hadn't noticed that. So "deep" is like George's "strong." GWB, the prior, used to use that word all the time, and I think it was so the public would associate it with him and think, "He's a stong leader." Now people go on about how intelligent - or deep - Obama is. I'm sure he's going to be deeply concerned as our economy sinks into deep doodoo. I could say I'm deeply disappointed in the "change" he's bringing, but it's what I expected.
The scriptwriters received the recommendation from the psych-ops consultant to have bad cop be "strong" and good cop be "deep".
That pretty much has been Hayden's clarion call for forty years. Change or move the Dems to the left is a mantra beginning to fall on deaf ears simply because it has become impotent. Apparently it keeps getting traction because the disempowered left has no where else to go. It looks more and more like a dysfunctional family where the patriarch of the clan continues to promise the moon. One week he tells his kids we will be going to the Zoo this weekend, and instead goes off with his buddies to get drunk. A week later he is promising something else, like taking the kids to the ball game, sadly noting that he will keep his promise this week. Saturday arrives and the kids are all waiting on the porch to be taken to the ball game, and dad disappears again... After a while, 'crying wolf' is no longer taken seriously. We don't need fairly tales about 'moving Obama leftward' what we need is an intervention of the order of magnitude employed on an addictive power hungry Administration being owned by the military industrial establishment, and corporations. Just say no! It really is that simple!
Say no? And then what?
My solution is simply to stop voting Democrat or Republican. I vote independent and generally third party. Until we seat third parties and break the two party system, all hope for legitimate reform and anti-war legislation will be a pipe dream.
Note that many of my friends elect not to vote at all - so meaningless has the process become.
Oregoncharles
"My solution is simply to stop voting Democrat or Republican."
Right on!
Bail to the Green Party. They have ballot lines in most states. Leaving the duopoly is the only way, they won't reform themselves - abusers never do.
After I saw Cynthia McKinney grill Rumsfeld on corruption in military contracting, she got my vote. Wouldn't it be great to have her in the White House now!
"My solution is simply to stop voting Democrat or Republican. I vote independent and generally third party. Until we seat third parties and break the two party system, all hope for legitimate reform and anti-war legislation will be a pipe dream."
Precisely the point I was making. I have not voted for a Dem since 1972. Never voted for a Republican. If third parties can achieve a standing like Perot did of between 18-23% of the vote, that would leverage real power (not imagined tripe like this article) to begin moving the purported 'left' of the duopoly, toward an authentically leftward direction. Without leverage you have nothing; something these authors apparently don't want to consider. Just keep repeating the fairly tail and the sheeple line up in droves waiting for their next hit.
These people want you to believe that if you keep offering your vote (which is currently the only leverage we have) without actually witnessing the consequences of change. Shift your paradigm then the superstructure follows, not the other way around.
The habit of referring to the people as "sheeple" is one of the unhealthy habits that render US leftists ineffective in drawing the people to the knowledge of their own capacity for taking power.
Without the people, nothing can be done.
When you re-register as Independent. Don't forget to write to your reps and tell them why, and "goodbye". (and copy the President with your letter). After the flood of New Orleans, the Torture, the Theft, etc., etc., I thought thousands of people would be out in the streets demanding impeachment of the criminals in the White House. I wrote hundreds of letters, and made dozens of phone calls. The Republicans and White house comment line people were just plain rude. All I got from the Democrats was a bunch of excuses for why they weren't doing anything. It's not enough for members of Congress to "Vote" against war funding. Any so called "representative" who isn't DOING anything to stop the Vicious Corrupt Corporate War Machine is not worth the salary we're paying them (and the healthcare they get for free - which taxpayers pay for). "I tried" is not a legitimate excuse. Going back to the same people who continually lie and make false promises is like an abused spouse who goes back to their abuser. Tell them to "Hit the road Jack".
The withdrawl from Iraq is on course, exactly as promised during the campaign, US soldiers are pulling back from the cities and will be out of the Country by the end of the year. Not fast enough for some of US, we wanted this over before it began, but at least we see an end and it's coming soon.
Afghanistan is a much more difficult deal. Obviously, our initial efforts there failed completely at all of our stated goals. The Bushies had little interest in Afghanistan other than to run a pipeline across it. They had no interest in capturing bin Laden and only took out the Taliban because they "had to do something". Al Qaeda, which was our creation, moved out of Afghanistan into the tribal regions of Pakistan, where we had a harder time reaching them with anything other than predators, which are prone to taking out more civilians than anything else, a great propaganda boost and recruitment tool for al Qaeda. But they were hit hard enough that they moved farther into Pakistan, the Swat Valley. The Taliban and assorted Jihadist groups took over this central valley and installed Sharia, complete with beatings and beheadings. Two million Pakistanis fled. Now the predators can't reach the Islamists but the Pakistani Army can.
The Obama administration has slowly come to realize the outlines of the mess we've created in the region and are changing the US/NATO approach. In a very incouraging sign, the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan met with Obama at the WhiteHouse and then a week later met with Ahmadinejad and I would guess that regional cooperation on removing the US-made cancer from their region was the major topic. Obama's plan for our involvement is taking a different direction as well. We are increasing the civil component of our involvement, getting basic services going, assisting with relief efforts, et cetera. We are training a police force in an effort to strengthen the Central Government, and our Military presence is shifting into a protective mode for aid shipments and infrastructure projects.
I'm not sure how successful this will be.
We have built up a huge amount of ill will by our indiscriminant violence and complete disregard for civilian life, people will have a hard time getting past that. Simply the imprimature of the USA on anything over there is likely to get a negative reaction from people right now.
But we can't just pull up stakes and steal away into the night. We OWE the people of Iraq and Afghanistan at least some compensation and relief from the disasters we've brought down on them. If we can make the transition from warfighting to guarding the rebuilding effort and we can contribute to that effort, we may be able to aquit ourselves of our previous behavior.
I haven't read this supplemental (I suppose I should before making comment on it) but I would hope that the change in direction in AfPakUS and the mechanics of withdrawal from Iraq are covered in it's folds. The fact that this is still being handled by Supplementals and not included in the Pentagon's budget is still troubling. But defeating this bill won't stop the wars, won't bring the troops home any faster and if it kills funding for rebuilding efforts, would be counterproductive to our (progressive) goals.
Oh, come off it. None of this indicates the responses you pick:
"The Obama administration has slowly come to realize"
--------- Where were they? Obama sure sounds like he can read. Couldn't someone have fired the URL of Al Jazeera English out to that blackberry?
"US soldiers are pulling back from the cities and will be out of the Country by the end of the year."
--------- Not so -- "Combat troops" the word was. And we would leave 50,000 "troops." That ought to be plenty to run the USO shows, right? Of course, you can call it "police action" as plenty of people did with reference to Korea and Vietnam. But 50,000 armed troops is plenty to shoot up the place. Moreover, we have not had even a breath of a promise about the 150-180,000 odd mercenaries.
Meanwhile, Obama has sent more troops into Afghanistan. If you move troops from one combat front to another, that does not count as "pulling troops back."
" . . . initial efforts there [in Afghanistan] failed completely at all of our stated goals."
---------- Wasn't the stated goal revenge? How relevant are the stated goal in this?
"We OWE the people of Iraq and Afghanistan at least some compensation and relief"
---------- You bet. Let's send them the money it's costing to shoot them. If Al Qaeda had offered to build a mosque where the Towers were, would we approve?
"We have built up a huge amount of ill will by our indiscriminant violence"
--------- Right. Let's quit funding it.
". . . kills funding for rebuilding efforts . . . "
--------- The money's for the military, not the Afghanis & Iraqis. If we wanted the Afghanis to rebuild what the Afghanis want, we could give them the money and leave. The US wants to build an infrastructure geared to American control. As far as the residents go, that's a destroying effort.
How do we know that? How do we know they do not approve? They keep shooting at us.
CV writes: "Al Qaeda, which was our creation, moved out of Afghanistan into the tribal regions of Pakistan" What? Where is the evidence? It seems you have some of the facts straight, but have still bought into some of the mainstream propaganda.
"We OWE the people of Iraq and Afghanistan at least some compensation and relief from the disasters we've brought down on them. If we can make the transition from warfighting to guarding the rebuilding effort and we can contribute to that effort, we may be able to aquit ourselves of our previous behavior."
I am sorry, but you sound like a typical arrogant, orientalist British imperial administrator from 100 years ago; it is the White Man's Burden to bring Western Civilization to these wild and savage Pasthun tribesmen (so-called Taleban). If we have to slaughter thousands of them to do it, so be it. It is for their own good right? I am sure you will not be a hypocrite and volunteer to do the work you have advocated right?
"...The withdrawl from Iraq is on course, exactly as promised during the campaign..."
- This is silly BS, a caricature of the Dem Party true believer.
"...We are increasing the civil component of our involvement, getting basic services going..."
- Too funny! "Civil component," eh? What nifty terminology!!
"...But we can't just pull up stakes and steal away into the night. We OWE the people of Iraq and Afghanistan at least some compensation and relief from the disasters we've brought down on them...."
- An unintentional self-parody of the "cruise-missile liberal," with a touch of White Man's Burden thrown in for flavor.
"...I haven't read this supplemental (I suppose I should before making comment on it)..."
- Wait a minute. You mean after you wrote a thousand words, blathering on about the high-fallutin' "civil components" and so forth, you now admit you haven't done enough homework to even comment on what you're pontificating about?
Nice form RichM. CV writes, "We OWE the people of Iraq and Afghanistan..."
-what we owe them is to just follow the wishes of the majority of Iraqis and Afghans (and Americans) and pack up and leave. White Man's Burden is right!
Yep, more complete BS from a Dem Party true believer.
But this particular lie is getting a lot of traction in the media. That:
"US soldiers are pulling back from the cities"
Here's why it's a joke:
"Odierno said the United States had so far handed over 142 bases to Iraqi control, with 320 still remaining"
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/15-10
142 bases out of 320?!? With two weeks to go?
And to repeat,
"Asked how many US troops would remain in urban centres in training or advisory capacities after the June 30 deadline, Odierno said he could not give specific details, but said the number would be "very small"."
Yet leaving any combat troops in Iraqi cities would violate the SOFA.
How does this apply to the Green Zone?
Are they really out of Iraqi cities if they are still in them?
If "combat forces" will be out of ALL Iraqis cities in two weeks as required by the SOFA (which they clearly won't), what will they be doing for the next two and a half years to justify roughly the same amount of war funding that they received for combat operations?
If the President disregards the wishes of the vast majority of Americans concerning our economic problems, immigration and favoring new taxes on the middle class, why would anyone think he would pay any attention to our comments about Afganistan?
Don't forget to add to that list of promises made that he has disregarded include mountaintop removal mining which before he got elected he said he would end, but the reality is that he approved 42 new permits and this evil practice will continue. He is a man who can't be trusted. A man who does not keep his word is not an honorable man.
"Don't forget to add to that list of promises made that he has disregarded include mountaintop removal mining which before he got elected he said he would end"
Oops...I did forget, but there are plenty of campaign pledges that were broken, so its getting hard to keep up with them all.
But he kept his campaign promises that many progressives accepted as the necessary triangulating to insulate himself from NeoCon charges, especially championed by Ms Hillary.
Here you go:
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 30
Compromise 8
Promise Broken 6
Stalled 11
In the Works 65
No Action 39
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
"But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."
--------------------
And what exactly are the terms we need to meet to make him do it?
When we go out into the street and protest the media short-circuits our efforts by mis-reporting and ridiculing.
When we write millions of emails they're disregarded.
When we phone in we're lucky to get a courteous reply.
60 million people voted for Obama and put Democrats in charge of both houses.
The political "space" has been created...MANY TIMES OVER.
It's time for Obama to deliver.
Who needs a courteous reply? Complain about the service, too, if it causes you trouble.
Presidents, entrepreneurs, and elits in general hold power by manipulating people. Sure they "use force": when they do, they manipulate some people to coerce others.
Why would he listen to the population? The population is his power. Let's not get romantic about this. A good swine farmer pays attention to his livestock:
Does he give them what they want? No.
Does he give them justice? Huh?
Does he give them what they need (to produce what he wants)?
Yes, of course: no feed, no pork.
The thing is that the complaint has to hit something the elites want: stop buying, stop working, stop voting for bestworsts, monkeywrench something, something -- and likely not primarily the few acts of isolated desperation, though they might have value, but a large enough body of people to change the flow of the system, albeit even a bit.
But most people will not move until they see others move, so some of those acts will seem isolated and desperate.
OBAMA: "But I would ask one thing of you, and that is to give me as much money as Goldman Sachs did and then I'll do anything."
OBAMA: "But I would ask one thing of you, members of AIPAC, and that is nothing. I'll do anything you want."
OBAMA: "But I would ask one thing of you, Progressive voters, and that is to please support me so that I can accomplish everything that is the opposite of what you desire."
OBAMA: "But I would ask one thing of you, the outraged public, and that is (snicker) go out and make me do it (ha!) Like hold a parade (chuckle) or make some phone calls or something (snort) I don't know, maybe write me a letter. I'm sure that will work, because I'm listening (guffaw), no really... I... Oh this is hard... I care about... your ideas, no, sorry, I can't do this with a straight face, I'm sorry... Let's try again later."