Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAdvice on Afghanistan
Dear President Obama,
You are nearing the day of decision as to whether you order the dispatch of more soldiers to Afghanistan.
Some of your advisors have urged up to 50,000 more soldiers, including several thousand called trainers of the Afghan army.
Other advisors have urged more caution, notably the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and former general, Karl W. Eikenberry, who opposes more soldiers so long as the Afghan government remains grossly dysfunctional.
Beside your own military and civilian advisors, you are receiving disparate counsel from an anemic Congress and your allies abroad.
But are you soliciting advise from stateside civic groups of experience and repute that represent many Americans? Or from genuine experts on that country such as Ashraf Ghani-a former American professor and later respected member of the Karzai government before his departure to other positions in that country?
George W. Bush, in the duplicitous run-up to the invasion of Iraq, insulated himself, closed his mind and refused to meet with civic associations in his own land. Like an autocrat bent on plunging a country into war and occupation, knowingly on false pretenses, he deliberately deprived himself of the information that might have restrained his disastrous, messianic militarism. Disastrous, not to him and Dick Cheney, but to our country, soldiers, and economy, and to the devastated Iraqi people and their ravaged nation.
In the months before the March 20, 2003, undeclared criminal war of aggression that violated our Constitution, statutes, and treaties, a dozen organizations each formally requested a meeting with him.
These organizations represented tens of millions of Americans. They came from the clergy, labor, environmentalists, businesses, students, peace groups, womens' groups, city councils, consumer, veteran, teachers groups, and international security experts. Many also came with first hand experience in Iraq and the Middle East.
They wanted to meet with their president. He never even answered their letters. The letters are available at nader.org.
Who would have thought last year that on assuming the presidency, that you would consider plunging deeper in to this quagmire without an exit strategy? The deeper you plunge, the greater your rejection of the history of occupations fueling insurgencies in that region. The more you insulate yourself from contrary judgments to those you have been receiving from your inner councils. Our country, its people and innocent Afghan people will pay the price.
A recent resignation by Matthew P. Hoh, a former marine combat captain in Iraq and highly regarded foreign service officer in Afghanistan, provides an independent analysis of the grievances afflicting the 42 million Pashtuns. In his words:
The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.Mr. Hoh proceeds to list these persistent failings and adds his articulate doubts about the strategic purposes of your Administration's military presence in Afghanistan. He ask, "Why and to what end?" His letter of conscience and protest concludes by noting the limitless effects on our foreign and military policy, and on our country and its economy.The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people. The Afghan government's failings, particularly when weighed against the sacrifice of American lives and collars, appear legion and metastatic.
Your staff estimates each U.S. soldier is costing $1 million a year, in addition to the horrific toll on these soldiers and the Afghan people. You owe the American people an un-Bush-like explanation. Why are you not receiving these groups of American from varied backgrounds and experience at the White House on this pending Afghan decision?
They may wonder, by contrast, why you have so many White House meetings with major corporate CEOs from Wall Street, from the health insurance companies and the drug companies. Is not the White House the peoples' House? Along with many other citizens in our country, I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
93 Comments so far
Show AllIf you are looking for your government or your representatives to change, stop, you should realize by now that what they represent is the wealthy elite and always have. If you are looking for real change and a world without war, poverty and hunger, take a look at the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project.
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
As America declines and falls, the eagle sits upon his mountain walls and observes the wrinkled sea crawling beneath him. The real culprit is not the Zionists, not Goldman Sacks, not Obama's spirit of compromising with the devil himself, but rather our "faith" in the military-industrial complex that says war saved us from the Great Depression; war is good.
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,339,771"
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,682
Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 1,523
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq:
$701,872,037,633.
Our faith is receding, leaving exposed the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world that it formerly obscured from view.
Jason Pacifico,
Do you have a link for either the book or the WBAI radio podcast? I can't find that specific book/program on google or amazon.
The thing I read was http://www.rense.com/general86/911s.html
Which is full of Aviation errors and misconceptions. The professor makes an argument saying a B757 can't hit the ground because of ground effect and can't go 500mph. Both of these statements are wrong. Any jet can exceed it's VMO/MMO limit in a dive, although structural failure can follow. Ground effect only comes into play when the jet is "dirty" and at low speeds and low vertical decent rates. I don't know why this author picked 500mph, It appears to me from watching the parking lot videos that whatever it was that hit the pentagon was not airborne more than a few feet for the entire video clip. Whether it was a 757 or not, the vehicle had to have hit the ground thousands of feet prior to the pentagon wall (to the right and before the first frame of the video). Note the ground dust. But this video frame still-shot on this site appears to be a different one showing a tail and a fuselage.
What's inspired all these "Conspiracy Theories", imho, is the totalitarian secrecy by the Pentagon followed by the complete failure of the media to cover the accident in detail. We live in a North Korea now, where everything is trumped by National Security. Worse, the pentagon has been involved in photoshop tomfoolery in more than one instance, so who's to say these images haven't been tampered with?
Don't get me wrong. The MIC's fingerprints are all over 911. But I fail to understand the motive of substituting air vehicles by missing the building. I suspect the B757 hit hard out of camera view knocking off it's wings but I'm not sure with the poor resolution of the video. Pilot's for 911 Truth, had a lot of trouble obtaining ARTCC radar plots and Flight Data Recorder transcripts from the government. They had to sue to get them. They claim a huge altitude discrepancy exists between the government's transcripts and the actual elevation of the building.
But I fail to see what any of this has to do with Ralph Nader. He's just trying to stop the war to restore Civil Rights in this country, not solve the millions of crimes committed by the Dueling Mob bosses of the Twenty First Century: MIC, AIPAC, CIA, Wall Street. etc etc.........
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
It's insane how much a big deal is made over the amount it will cost for a healthcare overhaul, meanwhile we spend a greater amount keeping this war going that's delivering nothing to the people. BTW-where's the town halls regarding Afghanistan?
http://www.mindwafers.com/3/post/2009/11/what-the-fk-is-happening-in-afghanistan1.html
A good analysis of the situation
Dear Mr. Nader,
Please get off your intellectual high horse and realize that Obama is working for the people.
He is looking out for your best interests, while you in return try to point out these meaningless inconsistencies between his pre-election rhetoric and his presidential reign.
We are engaged in this war so that we can have peace. We need to be there militarily. How else can the Middle East learn about American democracy?
Furthermore, we can't let our economy go down the tube, and that is why we are trying to help the bankers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. It's only fair.
You don't take the money away from your child, just because they are drug addicted. The solution is for you to give them more money and stop bugging them. This is the way to enable them to become responsible with the drugs they take.
Obama is bravely meeting with the people who are looking out for this country's best interest: the CEOs of Wall Street, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies. Have you ever heard of the trickle down effect? You have to remember that for every billion dollars you give to the people who deserve it, there is at least one job created, and who isn't happy to work as a maid?
Mr. Nader, you have been dwelling on these thought-out reasoned positions for so long that I think you really believe them.
It is time for you to realize that you must be wrong because nobody voted for you. Our Presidents from Obama, Bush W., Clinton, Reagan, have all all told the American people what to do, and we have all dutifully complied with their demands.
sincerely,
Obedient American Patriot
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
The very sad part of the cost of the USA's wars are the people coming back from their wars zones to the USA who are sooo traumatized. Those who are physically harmed (usually brain trauma) and psychologically damaged people who will reek havoc on their families, community and the USA. Those costs are not calculated by those who profit from the USA wars.(Blackwater Bush's buddies)
It is sad and I always wonder how many of the people who choose to go to war have their children on the front lines. Not like (dipsey's)Sara's secure child who will never see the reality of being on the front line.
No mention of the Proposed Pipeline. Are we considered nuts
to even mention this? Bush invaded Iraq for the oil and gave a lot of it to China where American Corporations are active.
Will China get a piece of the action when the Pipeline is
finally built? Did Obama discuss the pipeline with the Chinese?
Get with the program Ralph...
From that Counterpunch article quoted above (I checked and it is there; Counterpunch does much good work, but their editing is truly sloppy):
"Something is radically wrong when the rhetoric of the left can no longer be distinguished from that of the right."
Let's see:
* Both the left and the right opposed the TARP bailout, for many of the same reasons.
* Both the left and the right oppose the health insurance reform bills, for some of the same reasons.
* Both the left and the right oppose "cap and trade" for many of the same reasons.
What is "radically wrong" is that both the left and the right feel RIPPED OFF and BETRAYED. And we (they) are correct to feel that way. As much by the Congress as by Obamabot. What this suggests is a paradigm shift in the U.S. political spectrum. This wouldn't be the first time the expression "strange bedfellows" is relevant.
For example, the MSM deride the term Populist, which has been subjected to a kind of political whiplash over decades. Huey Long was a Populist. Dennis Kucinich is a Populist. We once had a Farmer-Labor Party in this country that was comprised of people with seemingly disparate goals and interests, until one went into a deeper analysis of the sources of their grievances. The misappropriation of Capital! The destruction of The Commons. People couldn't always articulate their felt anxieties but they knew they were being screwed. People feel helpless, we are angry, and we want to lash out. We don't want to put up with it anymore. Feelings of insecurity are at record levels and the economic consequences for individuals and families in this crisis are the same regardless of political views. If you just lost your job and can't make your mortgage payment the bank doesn't care who you voted for (if you bothered).
A good recent example of this process both tactically and strategically is the Iranian Revolution. Too many people today forget that communists and socialists and a broad spectrum of Iranian society joined with the Ayatollah Khomeini in overthrowing the Shah in 1979. They ALL succeeded in that goal; then came the power struggle.
Instead of suggesting that the Left ought to be "deferential" to Obamabot, we ought to be searching for Common Ground with those we might have thought were our opponents. I've thought for many years that the Left/Right construct is synthetic. It's an MSM divide and conquer strategy by what so many people at this site call the Corporatists. (One small example. I happen to believe in family planning. I don't like the idea of abortion. But I believe a woman's right to choose takes precedence. I see no contradiction in my views here, yet in the political milieu these views are presented as Either/Or and murders of doctors have resulted.)
If our "fringes" can find Common Ground against those who are RAPING the people of this country, then so be it (with apologies to SR for once again misappropriating the term "rape." I just can't find a better one right now...). Come to think of it, to say that we are all being SODOMIZED would be more egalitarian.
If we don't hang together we shall all hang separately... Who said that! Just another monkey with a quill.
-30-
[Instead of suggesting that the Left ought to be "deferential" to Obamabot, we ought to be searching for Common Ground with those we might have thought were our opponents.]
Just so, but you've got 'progressive' blogs like CD now crowing about the pledge of allegiance and how 'un-American' it is, see the two concurrent CD articles on it right now ! If there was ever a perfect non-issue to split the hoi polloi, that's it, and the 'left' is on it like .... well ...
Mr. Nader's final paragraph--in which he specifies some of the powers behind Obama's throne--is an ironic refutation of his sad fantasy, "only the super-rich can save us."
"But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."
Many of us were shocked by his words, but how unfortunately prescient they were.
Let's put it all in a proper framework. How can the U.S. spend hundreds of billions of dollars on ludicrous, horrific. unnecessary wars and then claim there isn't money for universal healthcare or affordable education? This question alone should have a vast majority of Americans spitting nails. Ah, but the media frames everything so that such a question now longer has power or "legitimacy". What an insane world we live in.
Nobody is learning from the fate of both the Vietnam vets and the Vietnamese so what makes you think that this administration or any of them will listen? Politicians are out of touch with the troops to learn anything.
Nader is being almost apologetically polite here, and also wrongly focusing on too many non-legal arguments.
Obama's officially attempted justification for continuing US military presence in the area has been, and will continue to be that the Afghanistan/NW Pakistan area was the alleged geographic source of the 9/11/2001 attackers, and thus US withdrawal from the area, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, will enable local Islamic radicals to regroup and attack the US once again: in short, that it is a matter of legally-defined national security that we maintain a strong military presence there.
This 'legal reasoning' is the essence of Obama's national security position and, as such, it is what Nader and other critics should be specifically challenging, since Obama's legal reasoning is invalid on its face. (The fact that US militarily goals, such as they're defined, are also physically impossible to achieve, should not be confused with or intertwined with the legal argument. Doing so improperly implies that US presence in the area COULD be legal if only we could 'win.' )
Legal arguments against US actions in Afghanistan, still remain the strongest kind of arguments; and they are that:
...after 8 yrs of 'active combat' in Afghanistan without a declaration of War, the US is de facto engaged in a war that has no constitutional basis, all illicit congressional enabling legislation notwithstanding
...the US long ago lost whatever short-term legal rationale it may have had, via both domestic and international law, for momentary police-action pursuit into Afghanistan of the alleged 9/11 masterminds.
Just as with Vietnam and Iraq, allowing solid legal arguments to become contingent upon or displaced by irrelevant military-tactical suppositions, is what keeps the law playing second fiddle to criminally acting politicians.
Jeevee
The kindest description we can find of Obama: severely mentally ill.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible,
will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
WARNING ---- NEXT LONG POST ANTI-LEFT ---- JUMP PAST IT
Why are you here? Shouldn't you be off burning books or something?
"They may wonder, by contrast, why you have so many White House meetings with major corporate CEOs from Wall Street, from the health insurance companies and the drug companies. Is not the White House the peoples' House?"
Most likely Obama will claim, like Hillary did when criticized for pandering to Rupert Murdoch, that he was just another one of her constituents--like everyone else. LOL!
Have to hand it to Nader for continuing against great odds and smear campaigns--without ever getting cynical, but always persisting. With some irony, he shares the page on Counterpunch today as well, with one of the most sachrine obama apologists I've read yet--JAYNE LYN STAHL, who suggests that obama's life is in danger from Right wing racists and implores us to defend him--equating Rightwing thugs with progressive criticism. So much for holding his feet to the fire, Huh?
She writes:
"Those, on the left, who have been going after him (Obama) with a viscera matching their radical right counterparts would be well advised to lighten up, and recognize that discourse has been racheted up such that it now poses a clear and present danger. The Tea Party of today is just as scary as the John Birch Society in Jimi Hendrix's day.
This is a presidency under siege, and those who confuse verbal dysentery with dissent do a disservice to the framer's notion of free speech.
To maintain a healthy political climate, disagreement must be accompanied with deference, and deference isn't coming from the right, or the left frankly.
One may disagree with a president's policies, yet still support the president. One may abjure the influence of special interests, the banksters, and Wall Street, and still press for extended unemployment benefits, a higher living wage, and greater access to affordable housing. One doesn't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.
While Afghanistan is clearly a quagmire, and a McChrystal surge would be a huge mistake, to articulate foreign policy differences with anything less than respect is a disservice to the civil rights efforts of Malcolm X, and the Rev. Martin Luther King.
Someday, what we now witness will be seen as nothing less than civil war, but it's about more than race, or party affiliation, it's a war between rich and poor. With our support of this president comes the implicit understanding that he was elected to represent the poor, and hungry. Anything short of that is unacceptable.
The only mandate that can work is one that mandates equal opportunity, and equal justice under the law. So far, I have heard no mention of that kind of mandate. If nothing else, this is one president who can be prevailed upon to listen.
Something is radically wrong when the rhetoric of the left can no longer be distinguished from that of the right. Anti-war posturing must not disintegrate into anti-Obama posturing.
And, more importantly, there is a racial component to the anti-Obama rhetoric that is especially troubling, one that must not be discounted, but addressed, or there will be a moral tsunami that will reverberate for generations."
This is on Counterpunch and not Huffington Post, where one would likely be censored for even challenging it!
"Something is radically wrong when the rhetoric of the left can no longer be distinguished from that of the right." –(Vern)
–I wish this equivalence that you correctly cite could be confined or limited merely to 'rhetorical' similarities between left and right.
Unfortunately, in America, the substantive congruences between left and right are no longer that dissimilar, if they ever were to begin with.
Paradoxically, the one 'good' thing that the Obama regime has accomplished is that it has unequivocally laid bare– for even the most myopic true believers and die hard progressives to finally acknowledge–is that in America, what passes as 'left,' is actually 'right.'
And this rightist drift or seepage cannot be limited to the complete demise of the long dead Democratic party. It is also manifested in the moribund ideological axioms and conventions of Progressivism itself.
Now that all the soporific pretenses have been rudely jettisoned– and unhinged from their corrupted moorings– perhaps Americans of conscience can begin to move beyond the wretched incoherence of the 'non-politics' that continue to haunt it.
How many more times do the archaic, 'zomboid' remnants of Liberalism and ersatz Progressivism have to die before their ghosts stop haunting the future?
–(Jill Bains)
People who stay online until 3am posting on CD tend to sound like college sophomores on speed. Try not to draft a Political Science thesis here. Better to lean more toward the 'fluff and puff' vernacular to undermine Dems. K? Now let's get out there and win this crusade.
I do believe there is common cause there--and because of the knee-jerk support of Obama based on partisan constructs or even liberal political correctness, the Right has been successful in channeling the completely legitimate anger of the people that the currently elitist Democratic party is unable to harness--much less address.
Coincidentally, on another thread someone was bothered by my reference to "obsolescent identity politics".
Tellingly, that person assumed that I was critiquing from the right.
Maybe it's the prescription, maybe it's our collective aging eyeballs-- but Stahl's fatuous essay is a perfect example of how the treasured old spectacles of Identity Politics make even well-meaning "progressive" wearers myopic to the point of being functionally blind.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I recognize that I am setting up an opportunity for even more scorn, but I am curious what you mean by "tellingly"?
Nice try but way too subtle for this site.
BTW, have you changed the beast in your moniker? Weren't you a moon-jumping beast before?
Jayne Lyn Stahl is right. Let's stop criticizing Obama and just play patty cake. I mean, Obama is black right? And so, I think we should support him, no matter how much he redistributes wealth to the ultrarich. I mean, Republicans would be doing the same thing, but this is our guy! And he's black! And we need to stop being so critical about Obama's policies because he needs our support, even if the things he's doing go completely against our principles. And it's understood that Obama represents the poor and the blacks, and with his policies there will be more poor and black people so he'll have even more people to represent! Won't that be grand?! (claps) Now all you people who are angry about his policies in Afghanistan, we just need to let him do his thing and stop being so critical. It's just war, anyway and Obama's not as bad as Bush because he's BLACK, so quit being racist and support this president and keep all your bad thoughts to yourself. *smile*
GAG!!!! GOD I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THIS!!!
Oh Lord, please protect our President and keep him safe from harm. Trying to imagine a country run by Joe Biden, or (oh please no) Nancy Pelosi would send the suicide rate sky high. Suicide is a sin we know, and ask Your help to keep well meaning Americans from sinning. Amen
"it's a war between rich and poor. With our support of this president comes the implicit understanding that he was elected to represent the poor, and hungry. Anything short of that is unacceptable."
What planet is this woman on? As if any of Obama's policies or actions have represented the poor and hungry over wealth & privilge?
Apologies for hijacking Nader's thread. Ironically Nader has always been civil, but he never compromised on the truth and he was still stoned for it.
There's only one reason left for our illegal half-assed occupation of Afghanistan: war profits. Period.
Without Afghanistan, Big War Profiteer is shit out of luck - we're just not blowing enough crap up in Iraq anymore to make a solid profit, see, so BWP must lobby for more death and destruction or face bankruptcy.
We libs/progs need to forget the moral arguments - BWP could give a f**k. The only thing they want is more $$$.
What we need to do is guarantee BWP a continued profit stream under two conditions: all BWP lobbyists are eliminated, and BWP accepts a bit of re-tasking - you know, instead of Hellfire missiles, how about windmills?
Meanwhile, we subsidize the Afghan government's hiring of our merry band of 'private security contractors' to continue doing whatever the hell they're doing - again, profit stream guaranteed - and also subsidize a Super Security Force to protect Pakistan's nukes just in case.
We libs/progs have got to grow up and stop 'hoping' that the right words will trigger a Big War Profiteer epiphany. We pay farmers not to grow crops, the Taliban to switch teams - why not Big War Profiteer to shut up and go away? We're payin em anyway, right?
ONLY ONE REASON? ---- PLEASE AVOID SUCH CONFUSION
For war is only one of the tools used by Empire USA to achieve a
dictatorial monopoly over our one-world economy. Trading war
materials for Middle East oil being far greater profit, but only
a drop in the bucked in the grand scheme of things.
And your comments being most hostile, most negative with profanity
and saying nothing about the solution to the problem, only
redundant bloody effects of the problem, surely if the corporate
rich were hiring paid actors to destroy this place they could not
publish a better post then yours.
Thank you for your letter Ralph and I could not agree more with you. I am working on an exit strategy and will devulge it to you and the American people as soon as I have all the details worked out, which is soon. In the meantime we need to support our brave and patriotic men and women fighting the terroists in Afghanistan: especially now since President Karzai has made a committment to Mrs. Clinton and me to wipe out corruption in his government. Ralph, thank you for kind letter. Regards, Barack.
You are of course referring to our “our brave and patriotic” solders
rotting behind bars for refusing to fight for our plundering Empire USA.
UPPER CLASS WANT TORTURE ---- WHY?
(1) Upper half of society has all our wealth, the upper 50% with more
wealth then debt, and as they have plundered the underdeveloped
nations to get such excessive wealth, only by fear generating things
like bombs and torture can they keep their plundered enemies in submission.
(2) Every nation that has used torture did it primarily to keep their
own people in fearful submission. That is why our government now
refuses to permanently outlaw torture and keeps making press
releases about pictures so horrible that no one should ever see them.
(3) And that is why our disaster medical industry is designed to
give us such anxiety from birth to death, for it is the most perfect
tool for keeping a people apprehensive, insecure and in fearful
submission to authority the world has ever known.
The persistent statement that "Zionists" are at the root of all problems of our country is reminiscent of a time around 1933 when "the Jews" were declared to be at the root of all problems of Germany. The persistent and rabid use of "Zionist" on this website makes me wonder whether the users are actually anti-Semites who wildly exaggerate, as a well-known German once did, the power and influence of Jews to hide the basic fact that these users are wholly unable to think and analyze rationally.
Hitler does rail against the Jews, but what was the reason? Did he just wake up one morning hating Jews? He spells out his reasons for hating Jews, Marxists, communists, social democrats, and trade unionists, in Ch2. of Mein Kampf titled 'Years of Suffereing and Studying in Vienna' (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html). Here is a little snip from Ch 8 which should intrigue you ....
"As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about the 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.
And here again later developments proved how correct our sentiment of those days was. Today the know-it-alls among our bourgeois politicians no longer laugh at us: today even they, in so far as they are not conscious liars, see that international stock exchange capital was not only the greatest agitator for the War, but that especially, now that the fight is over, it spares no effort to turn the peace into a hell.
The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation's struggle for its economic independence and freedom."
Who is saying that "'Zionists" are at the root of all problems of our country'"? Are you responding to a comment I missed, or to Nader, who has not said this?
However, Zionists ARE at the root of many problems in this country, since they have so much influence with our government and media, resulting in the continuing unAmerican U.S. support of apartheid Israel and its ethnic cleansing of, and human rights abuses and war crimes in, Palestine. In violation of our own laws, we continue to give the latest in weapons to Israel, despite the fact that they use these weapons to slaughter Palestinian civilians and continue the illegal Israeli occupation, and theft of, Palestine. This inevitably has caused much hatred worldwide toward the U.S.
Israel is a foreign country, not part of the U.S., and yet people with dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship, like White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emmanuel, operate in the highest levels of U.S. government. You can find many quotes of Israeli leaders affirming their confidence in their power over the U.S. government. For example:
Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will
do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America,
and the Americans know it."
- Ariel Sharon
Crowsnest, your post is a great example of the use of Israel's ongoing strategy to stifle criticism: conflate "Jew" with "Zionist" and cry "anti-Semitic" at every opportunity. However, many Jews reject Zionism as contrary to Judaism, and many non-Jews are so disgusted and alarmed by the actions of Israel and the U.S. that the "anti-Semitic" card is steadily losing its power to intimidate and silence.
Sir, you are silly to assume that the State of Israel has anything to do with my opinions. My opinions about anti-Semitism are based on the fact that my father, a Jew, survived 12 years of concentration camps and my mother nine months for hiding Jewish friends in our house in Amsterdam when I was a boy of 16.
Also I am not aware that any non-Jewish Zionists exist. I therefore firmly think that many anti-Semites hide behind the word Zionism.
With regards to Israel: it is my opinion that the United Nations had zero justification to break up the former British Mandate of Palestine hence there is no legal basis for the existence of Israel. Its existence is based on violence, war, and conquest.
Finally, please explain cogently which problems of our countries are caused only, I repeat only, by Zionists. I myself cannot see any that were not also caused by God-fearing Christians.
[Also I am not aware that any non-Jewish Zionists exist.]
The US is full of non-Jewish Zionists. But to discuss the issue, you must first define Zionism, I take it that the self-evident definition is that a Zionist supports the existence of Zion, i.e., Israel as a Jewish state.
If you've got a better definition, let's hear it.
With my definition, the list of non-Jewish Zionists is endless, Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader, Stony Hoyer, Rev. Hagee, ..... practically everyone in the US is a Zionist.
Now, to find a Jewish non-Zionist is more of a challenge. There was an Israeli non-Zionist, Ilan Pappe, but I understand he has fled the country. For Jewish non-Zionists there is the organization Jews Against Zionism, but I think it is miniscule.
It is even difficult to find a non-Jewish non-Zionist. There are a few I suppose but none come to mind. The La. politician, his name slips me, but there is no US politician, media figure, editorialist, etc, that is not a Zionist.
[ With regards to Israel: it is my opinion that the United Nations had zero justification to break up the former British Mandate of Palestine hence there is no legal basis for the existence of Israel. Its existence is based on violence, war, and conquest.]
Well, I'd say this makes you a non-Zionist, almost. But the question is the future, not the past. The real criteria is what do you support as the solution for Israel, that is, what solution should the US impose (assuming that the US can impose a solution). If you favor the two-state solution, you are a Zionist, the one-state solution, you are a non-Zionist.
I agree. Corporatists are the main problem and they come in all ethnicities.
Joe
God created the Hebrew race to be the most intelligent on earth as a test,
to see if they would pass their excessive wealth down to those of another
race where it belongs.
And so, with Israel now building the most expensive homes on earth,
and most of Gaza living the cold winter in tents,
obviously Israel has failed the test.
Abraham being the first Hebrew and the richest and most intelligent
man of his time.
For we are all created with a different level of intelligence as a test,
to see if we pass our excess down to those less fortunate where it belongs.
For the purpose of this world is to prove the harm in it,
and we will know exactly when harm has reached its ultimate conclusion,
when all things turn toward the good.
Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm here. How is this not racist drivel? If I said that "god created the Aryan race to be the most intelligent on earth" I know it would be racist, so...
How can a self-evident fact be "racist?"
How can my stating that Hebrews are the most
intelligent of people in anyway insult those people?
For I be a slow and careful thinking laboring man
and never do I feel hurt when people call me
dump or stupid, for surely that is exactly
what I am, namely most dumb and stupid.
Lighten up man, life is short.
Alabama john,
You offend me sir, with your simple-minded Religious tripe, because I believe that there is no god. You offend me and you offend other faiths with the assumption that we must concur with your sheltered southern-bible-thumping view of the world.
The only reason any group is "a chosen people" is because they have devolved into the pursuit of organized crime. Shear intelligence would certainly see the value of charity in Gaza, but instead we see unashamed villainy. This brings the international community to view all Jews as self-centered and cruel and not worthy of any station attained by virtue or intellect.
Is this what you want?
It's not what I want. But if IsNotReal keeps living in their own little world funded by Israeli-American bankers like AIPAC (which is funded by religious nuts via the offering plate), all good Americans are going to have to refuse to allow our government to fund their misadventures over there. We've had it.
We have to cut off Israel now; we have to investigate the TARP robberies of the US Treasury and find out where that money really went. Religious extremism is what got us into this mess; returning to an even-keeled secular government is what will get us out.
Despite the bi-polar anguish of "Not Allan" to declare a holy war based only on support or non-support of Zionism, Nader supporters feel Ralph is diligent to oppose this corporate war on more broader based concerns of most of the population. I appeal to Ralph to run for Congress where citizens can finally have one lonely voice that is truly on their side.
I apologize in advance for offending the Christian/Israeli Mafia with the truth.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
[Despite the bi-polar anguish of "Not Allan" to declare a holy war based only on support or non-support of Zionism,]
Yep.
[Nader supporters feel Ralph is diligent to oppose this corporate war]
But there is more to my criticism of Nader. He asks 'why are we in Afghanistan?'. He doesn't give any analysis of the cause of the war WHATSOEVER. There has been an incredible dumbing down of discussion in the US, and Nader is part of it, he contributes nothing at all. This is part of the problem, it's as if the Afghanistan war just 'happened', no reason, no cause, no villains, Nader doesn't have a CLUE. Maybe there are reasons for apparent blind stupidity and lack of rudimentary curiosity, you know, politics, but I'm tired of that. Maybe the reason Nader is ineffective is that he doesn't answer any of the questions that need to be answered, like 'why are we in Afghanistan', and the answers need to be detailed and documented, not quips like 'corporate war'. Nader doesn't answer it, and he doesn't attempt to answer it, and he does not appear to be aware, much less ashamed, of his complete lack of this fundamental information.
Hey Not Allan,
Have you ever heard of the power of Understatement? I believe this is what Ralph Nader does.
Sorry for the Bi-Polar characterization of your posts. I like you and I like your writing. But I think Ralph comes in at the problem from a different angle than everybody else. While we rail on from the outside, Nader takes the reserved calm-collected Harvard debate route to the individual issues. Since he graduated from the establishment's den of despotism: Harvard University, they cannot dismiss him out of hand. He has the right to dissent because he's in the club. He knows the secret handshake. Never mind the fact that the robber barons hate him, since he's for the little guy on the street, the rules of the club say that he is entitled to air the truth on national issues since he is a Harvard Law School Grad. In the past he has had great success protecting citizens from big corporate hazards they didn't even know existed such as lethal steering wheel columns that would fatally puncture people's chest impaling them in otherwise survivable accidents. Safety Glass and collapsable steering wheel columns we are still using, and I feel all of us owe a debt of thanks to Mr. Nader.
Instead of thanking Ralph for his tireless efforts on everybody's behalf, the big corporate machine vilified him as a loon. Ralph certainly knows who started this war and what it's about, but the odds of imprisoning the entire congress and most of Wall Street are zero and he knows it. During his former campaigns Ralph did focus on the MIC and Oil interests that started this "illegal war". His choice to attack it from a legal perspective I'm sure stems from his training in law. His choice not to target AIPAC directly is his. Maybe he's already got enough on his plate. Just how many dragons do you want one Ralph Nader to slay?
If we don't stand behind the one guy who has a long track record of looking out for the little guy, at no personal profit to himself, we cannot expect a David vs Goliath outcome (damn, I used a religious reference there.... my bad.)
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Given Obama's overall background, I don't expect him to be any different in listening and learning where it counts. I like the letter Nader wrote to Obama but like the rest of our letters to the president, this one will fall on deaf ears provided it even reaches them on 1600. Advising Obama is about as "good" as advising Dubya.
Sometimes, I too feel that Nader should not bother advising either one of these two parties but silently make the move to run for office, be it Senator of CT 2010 or president 2012. I feel that he is being too nice to them.
"Sometimes, I too feel that Nader should not bother advising either one of these two parties ... I feel that he is being too nice to them." –(Jennifer Bedingfield)
–I agree wholeheartedly.
If there is a problem with Nader it is that he is not 'shrill' enough and that he is not 'left' enough. He is an 'option of the system' and has become superannuated as such, because the system itself is dead. Why continue to reference oneself through a dead entity or to play a game that has all but terminated?
He has no business kowtowing to the Democratic Party in any way whatsoever; it is an exercise in self abasement that is demeaning and gratuitously insulting to his stature.
But he is old now. He has done enough. Even an electoral victory in a Senatorial campaign would be at best a symbolic, pyrrhic victory in the larger grand malaise of American electoral politics.
Of course it is 'better than nothing' but it is still nothing. This posting is not an argument against a Nader candidacy in Connecticut or elsewhere. If he can give the Democratic Party a black eye, fine! That is justification enough.
It is incumbent on those who learned from him to exacerbate things beyond the Nader legacy by articulating a programmatic agenda further to the left.
It matters little if that program abjures the game of electoral 'success.' To be sure that concept is difficult, if not impossible to fathom for Americans who have to believe in the possibility of 'winning' and the practicality of concrete 'results.' The 'winner take all' mentality is a structural given which underwrites an allegiance to the very system one criticizes, but cannot seem to ever reject outright. To change the game one must refuse to play the game.
Ralph Nader anywhere else is a centrist, if not some hybrid variant of liberal rightist. That he has always been just that 'even in America' is not a pejorative or derogatory appraisal. But it is evidence of an ideological backwardness endemic to the American political mindset.
As it is, he has in the past all but been censored and despicably marginalized, even for relatively tepid, if not totally innocuous interventions such as this one on Afghanistan.
It is only an assessment of how much further people of conscience in America need to go to the point where they actually begin to make sense.
–(Jill Bains)
"Along with many other citizens in our country, I look forward to your response."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WARSHINGTON, D.C.
Dear Mr. Nader:
Go drink seawater!
Sincerely,
His Excellency, The Great Obama
Dear Ralph,
Obama don't meet with anyone who might question the global ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire --- which controls our former country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, and for which Obama, Congress, the media, the courts, and all other hierarchical/elitist organizations work as 'front-men'.
The only solution, Ralph, as I mentioned to you in Portland, toward confronting global Empire, is a Global People's Movement (qua Revolution) --- which is now building, and would greatly benefit from your assistance.
Fortunately, Obama working for the Global Empire is our biggest gift!
The fact that Obama is so obviously in the tank for the global ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire is the greatest opportunity for the vast majority of average people to finally swear-off this Empire and join together in a Global People's Movement.
While Bill Clinton, Obama, and other false 'hopesters' existed and were partially believable, the organization and development of a truly Global People's Movement (qua Revolution) was stunted, aborted, and still-born.
Now that we all recognize that such smooth-talking con-artists and 'hope' hucksters are merely the planted 'good cops' working for the very same Global Ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire as 'bad-cops' like Reagan and Bushes, we are now free to kiss-off them and their entire corrupt and deceitful system of Empire, and to start fresh and unified in our serious business of building a Global People's Movement.
The vast majority of average, working/middle-class Americans are, as Marx predicted, going to lead the world in a Global People's Movement (qua Revolution) in rejecting not just the old, already discredited nationalist-style empires of the 18th to 20th century, but this newer, and more dangerous 21st century global ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire --- which has taken over nominal governments by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy in our former country --- and is currently recruiting like-minded ruling-elites in the U.K, Israel, China, etc.
Their smoothest 'front-man', Obama, is currently trying to square the circle between America's failing image of 'democratic capitalism' (moron Bush's oxymoron) with the reality of China's 'corporate communism' (as Dylan Ratigan accurately describes the Empire here and there).
But Obama's silky smooth fabrications will not sell to people anywhere ---- starting with a sales collapse right here in River City, and continuing with the Chinese people's rejection of his proposed 'deal with the devil'; their own similar Chinese ruling-elite overlords.
The American people are already suffering the worst income inequality in the world (GINI Coefficient). They can already palpably feel it --- and it's going to get worse fast --- which is why the American people are going to be the true vanguard of a fast developing Global People's Movement (which will make the fall of the Berlin Wall look like a slow motion news reel --- news that the CIA will similarly and incredulously watch on TV).
The fantastic news is that most people in the world now recognize that we are all under the thumb of the same Global ruling-elite Empire, we're rejecting this Empire by wide margins, and the formation of a counter-balancing Global People's Movement to confront the 'Corporate Communist' Empire is now quickly spreading.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/bbcc-n12.shtml
As Pogo would say, "We have met the enemy, and he is Empire".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Dear Mr. Nader,
Will you please run for office in 2010, either for Senator or Representative? I for one feel that the American people could use someone like you writing legislation. I also think that you would inspire a lot of other people to run as Independents. Right now it is so easy to demonstrate that the two parties in control are really one party with the same deadly agenda. People will vote for independents next year, because it is only going to get worse. If they go into the voting booth and there are only R's and D's, that's what they will support. If there's an *I* beside a candidate's name it will be an asset in this next election. Please give Americans a better choice!
Sincerely, Elaine M.
Bring America Back !!!!
****Along with bad boy Ralph Naders' back seat driving, I wish we could attach the article just to the left of this
on todays CD===that of an Afghan girl Malalai Joya==and her lifetime actual story on why US Troops should go home !
****In case Obama's interested, that article is titled:
"LIBERATION WAS JUST A LIE " For the real truth, just read it
Mr President !!
He does not have to read it. OBOMBA is not that naive and he already knows liberation is a lie. Don't be conned, he knows the truth.
It is surprising that Common Dreams has not highlighted Obama's declaration that Mohammed will be convicted and of Attorney General's statement that "acquittal is not an option". Why even have a trial if Obama seemingly already knows that Mohammed is going to be judged guilty? It would almost appear that the fix is in regarding the outcome of that trial despite the fact that Mohammed was waterboarded over 180 times. Given that fact, one would think that the defense should file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that any testimony that Mohammed will give will be tainted because of the torture that he had endured at the hands of the Americans. Unless, that is, the judge in this case has been given the word, as Holder has stated, that the only outcome from his trial should be a guilty verdict.
This is reminiscent of the scene in the classic Western film One-Eyed Jacks when the corrupt sheriff, played by Karl Malden, tells Rio, played by Marlon Brando, who is sitting in a jail cell, that he will indeed receive a fair trial. And then he is going to hang him.
You have it absolutely right, this is just like "One-Eyed Jacks." Except that at least Rio wasn't tortured by having his children tortured. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's little boys were tortured in U.S. custody and have somehow disappeared. Where are they? From Amnesty International:
http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/pakistan_chil...
Updated: 19 March 2009
In September 2002, Yusuf al-Khalid, then nine years-old, and Abed al-Khalid, then seven years-old, were reportedly apprehended by Pakistani security forces during an attempted capture of their father, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Reports by other detainees indicate that the boys were ill-treated while in Pakistani custody. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in March 2003 and was subjected to over three years of enforced disappearance, and to other torture and ill-treatment, by the US authorities before being transferred to Guantánamo Bay, where he is currently held.
After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's arrest in March 2003, Yusuf and Abed Al Khalid were reportedly transferred out of Pakistan to US custody -- allegedly for questioning about their father's activities and to be used as leverage to force their father to co-operate. A Sunday Telegraph (UK) article in March 2003 alleged that CIA interrogators had detained the children and that one official explained that: "We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children...but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care." In the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Combatant Status Review Tribunal in March 2007, he indicates knowledge that his children were apprehended and abused: "They arrested my kids intentionally. They are kids. They been arrested for four months, they had been abused." Their whereabouts remain unknown.
What kind of a country have we become, kidnapping and torturing children? What has happened to these children, and why have they disappeared?
Then Obama tried to walk back his statement and clarified that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad would be tried by 'a prosecutor, a judge, and a jury'. He kinda forgot the defense...
Americans should be absolutely mortified to hear their leaders unashamedly admit to conducting a kangaroo court.
Like what so much else in the original political design of the US has come to be, these trials will constitute nothing more than a ritual, rather than a serious attempt to conform to principles of justice. Our political/legal system appears to consist more of substance-less rituals with each passing year.
When a computer system is broken, people call a computer engineer.
When a political system is broken, America listens to politicians and generals.
As a political engineer, I suggest that Progressives start mentioning the DAFT law that allows and even forces the President to wield the US military in an insane and DAFT effort to reach the unattainable goal of preventing future terrorism.
-----
Mr. Obama, from May 2009:
"After 9/11...faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions...In other words, we went off course."
"Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates."
Mr. Obama uses words like "the American people...who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach."
Progressives use the same terms and fight their losing battles in the same manner as 8 years ago.
Mr. Obama speaks of war against al-Qaeda. Progressives speak of war in Afghanistan.
And Progressives complain that they aren't listened to.
If you ask only a certain inner circle of Generals, they will usually advise different variations on the theme of war. But only war. They still like to play with their toy soldiers.
We have not had a real need for war and generals since before I was born.
Joe
Instead the Mass Media has us arguing "IS IT TORTURE; YES OR NO?"
Wow! Ralph said it out loud, the president attacked Iraq on false pretenses!!!
Isn't that a crime? To lie and create false evidence about going to war... isn't that a crime?
Isn't that a crime? To lie and create false evidence about going to war... isn't that a crime?
It's called Waging Aggressive War. And at Nuremberg it got the Nazis (most of them) death by hanging. Bush and Cheney should receive no less.
No it's not a crime. It's Christian.
The "peoples' house"? Nay, the Bush Hog Sty.
The suspicion is that Obama will do what he so often does and that is to compromise. Instead of granting McChrystal's request for 50,000 troops Obama may decide to split the difference and instead give him 25,000. By doing this, Obama will give the appearance of being an [alleged] peacemaker and, as usual, the progressives and Democrats will hail his efforts as being a step in the right direction. The top military brass probably gave Obama too high a number and will be happy, at least for now, to settle for a number that was less than what they requested from their commander-in-chief. And the result will be that the Democrats and the media will proclaim that Obama has practically brought, to recall a phrase from an earlier era, peace in our time while overlooking the fact that American soldiers are still remaining, unjustifiably, in two third world countries.
As Nader and Hoh and others are implying, bring those troops home-now!
Ralph, buddy, he won't read it.
It will never make it to his table...errr, desk.
He is busy looking forward....
to not listening.
Ralph Nader, another hard-core Zionist for peace. Doubt it? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPQlfZ-yB4
Ok, beyond that what gets me about this article and countless others like it is the questions ... Nader cites Hoh, a real heavyweight, who asks the probing question about the US in Afghanistan "Why and to what end?"
What's wrong with that question? Everything. Nader is a career politician, he's spent his life thinking about politics and foreign policy, and this freaking idiot has no idea why and to what end we are in Afghanistan. That is more than remarkable. He should be banished from public speaking until he gets some kind of g** d***** clue as to what is going on. Our 'opposition' is made up of clueless idiots who couldn't find their own a** with both hands !
I've read enough of your posts to realize you think highly of yourself, and believe only you know the truth. That's wonderful, we need people like you.
So, please post your real name and your website where we can all send contributions to your upcoming campaign for Senator/President/whatever. If you choose not to do this, I'll assume you're just a blowhard ahole and will ignore the rest of your posts. Others I hope will do the same.
[So, please post your real name and your website where we can all send contributions ]
Please send any contributions to
Eric Hunt
PO Box 72
Archbald, PA 18403
http://erichunt.net/
Your contributions will be greatly appreciated.
Nice! Er, so who's Allan??
"Not Allen": Those "clueless idiots" you speak of are winning. And they'll finally run our sorry asses out just like the Vietnamese did.
We'd do the same here if a bunch of thugs moved in on our territory.
The Pentagon and Washington, with their little game of empire - at some point- are going to piss off someone for the last time and we'll pay for it with a Hiroshima of our very own.
Then that will be the end of it. End of story.
By 'opposition' I meant Nader, Hightower, Kucinich, et. al., the usual cast of Zionists for peace who pose as the opposition to the establishment.
Silly attack on all of those guys. Especially Nader, who is from a Lebanese-American family and has taken a critical stance against Israel's policies.
Joe
[Nader ..... has taken a critical stance against Israel's policies.]
They all have taken a critical stance against Israel's policies, while supporting it's right to exist as a Jewish state on Palestinian land, i.e., the source of conflict for the last 60 years and for the foreseeable future. They are shills. Part of the propaganda charade. Unwilling to call Israel the apartheid state that it is, not because of the territories, but because of the division of Palestine. Read Chomsky (also a shill) but a good analyst ... from 'How Propaganda Works in the West'
"Keeping the People Passive & Obedient
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views."
The allowed spectrum of discussion in the US is from the Likud Zionists (who want all of Palestine) like Bill Kristol to the humanitarian Zionists (who'll settle for the '67 borders) like Nader. That ain't getting it. In fact, it's just plain stupid. I'm tired of it. Wake up.
I don't often respond to anyone, no matter how stupid, in this way ---- but, "What an arse-hole".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
May I volunteer to help you find your a***? Maybe three hands---or four---could accomplish this task. After solving that problem, you could give us a g**d**** clue as to what this war is about.
What is the war (in Afghanistan) about? I don't know a satisfactory answer, but I know 3 starting points ...
1. the Webster Tarpley - Zbig Brzezinski thesis ... Tarpley posits a split in the oligarchy between the Zionists and the Rockefelleristas, with the Zionists now being on the out, and the R's in, the R's lead is set by Z. Brzezinski who has a lifelong animus to Russia, and also is a big board player who recognizes that the other bigs are Russia and China and ZB does not share the Zionists obsession with Zion, so, his plan is to cozy up to Iran, and destabilize Pakistan, and pit them against Russia/China. Tarpley was saying before O was elected that Pakistan was at the top of the list if he got elected .... and he was right.
2. Pepe Escobar is all over youtube with his pipelineistan thesis, which is self-explanatory
3. The Zionists did map out plans for total domination of the ME in the Clean Break and PNAC documents, so that is another starting point. These same Zionists manifestly did direct the invasion of Iraq, and the threats to Iran, and all of this stuff plays together, so Afghanistan could be another piece on their board.
You have a point --- when elites fight there's hell to pay.
But I don't share your analysis or apparent enthusiasm that an elite confrontation is in the works (nor that Nader is favorably disposed to any elite/Empire structure, or would ever support global elite Empire as an acceptable "End of History", to borrow Fukuyama's now self-disavowed concept).
Yes, there may be some double-dealing and possible 'blow-back' consideration going on among elite factions, but the main interest now in the quite-well-advanced Global Empire is to continue drawing attractive (and useful) nation-state-centric empires and near-empires (like U.K., Israel, China, etc) into the evolving Global Empire --- before the vast majority here and abroad unite and bring a Global People's Movement forth to confront Global Empire.
I'm certainly working toward the later People's Movement to confront Empire ---- and I'm absolutely sure that Ralph, and most other informed progressives and humanists are doing the same.
If you want to poll any pro-Global Empire elite factions about their thoughts on the subject you'll have to do some very selective polling --- since they represent less than .01% of global human population. Although you might start with mouthpiece Tom Friedman, though even he seems to realize that we're not at any "End of History" with 'neoliberal democracy' and 'free-market capitalism', and that the "World (isn't) Really Flat", but rough and bumpy with the pot-holes caused by this GD hidden Global corporate/financial Empire.
Good luck,
Alan
PS. there is no New American (empire) Century, nor a PNAC wet-dream about it. The American Century (Luce's term) is old news now --- as it WAS the 20th century (although America never publicly admitted to being an Empire, even in the post-WWII and post-Empire 2nd half of the game, when it vanquished all the players with that on their jerseys).
No, PNAC may have believed in the 'green light', but it couldn't possibly run faster, stretch out its arms further, or row on enough back against the current of history. The 21st Century was planned to be the first century of a new model car, the Global Empire Century --- but god willing it will be the first century of real people's democracy, and Ralph is one of the people who will help put the candles on the birthday cake.
as for bush, he should be in jail. he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, but he attacked iraq anyway. is there a shred of international law anywhere that supports what he did? remember that he was the one who told the un inspectors to leave. why? because bush knew the un inspectors would find nothing, thereby vanishing his pretext for agressive war. what leader in history ever attacked a country when he already had access to turn his opponent's country upside down looking for armaments? the un already had the power to destroy or confiscate any weapons forbidden to iraq. amazing the so-called liberal media never pointed out this obvious inference. they were too worried about losing rating points to fox news; losing rating points would mean that they would have to charge corporate advertisers at a lower per minute rate, since fewer gawkers would tune in as they chomped pizza while watching iraq burn on the boob tube.
yes, we need a new candidate, one that will run against obama in the 2012 presidential primary in new hampshire. he simply has no backbone, can't stand up to the generals, quivers before the bishops, seems drugged by big pharma, and cowers before dick cheney. it may be that obama has intuited that he has reached the pinnacle by radiating as much niceness as competency. being considered an african-american, he probably senses that when he is agressive and adamant, it raises the hackles of whites. also, when times are troubled and many are suffering, whites may, even subconsciously, find it self-demeaning to be helped by such an intelligent and successful afro-american. there is definitely a different psychology all about obama. i'm still trying to put my finger on it. he's probably a great person, one we could all be friends with. but he's got to grit his teeth, scowl, and start kicking some butt here and there. he got the same percent of the vote that the first george bush got against dukakis. everyone called that a mandate for bush's policies. it's now time for obama to exercise the power we gave him last november.
Jeevee
The kindest description: severely mentally ill.
"He's probably a great person" That remains to be seen. Perhaps not as evil as Uncle Dickie or Jesus W. but he is a war criminal just the same for continuing the Evil Duo's war on terra. Sure, they dropped the Bush slogan "war on terror" but retained the war. It's all marketing. Obubba is a phoney. He looked great with his shirt off on vacation in Hawaii but the schumck still smokes! I have my own flaws but I don't bullshit people and make promises that I can't keep.
Obama is really a great leader if only ........ if only ........ if... ???????
He ate yogurt for breakfast.
But meeting with these riff-raff might "weaken the Presidency" as spokesman Gibbs put it recently, by giving the appearance of waffling on war. Which some hawks are already accusing him of. Besides, didn't he campaign on a promise to expand the Afghan war? Can't break any campaign promises, right?
-30-
The fact that peace groups are considered "low level terrorists" by the Pentagon tells you everything you need to know about the dark age our country is enmeshed in.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/pentagon-rebrands-
protest-as-low-level-terrorism/
So what then would be high level terrorism? Would that be dropping DU bombs on villages from pilotless drones?
Good point. I've said for years that a "terrorist", defined by the US military/ political classes, is any person or group that resists the military/political will of the American imperial agenda. That's what they really mean by terrorism. Bush and Cheney established this ruling guideline. You are a terrorist if you openly object to what the US is doing in the Middle East. The fact that this is completely backwards, that the US military and its politicians in Washington are the true terrorists stalking the world, only conforms to our Orwellian age. Those organizing for peace are terrorists. Those committing war crimes, torturing in the name of "freedom," lying, murdering, thieving and conniving to increase their illegitimate power are given Nobel Prizes for Peace. The language is thereby prostituted in service of Lies, so there is no way to expect anything else from our "leaders."
"Why are you not receiving these groups of American from varied backgrounds and experience at the White House on this pending Afghan decision?"
Because the political/social/economic hierarchy must be preserved at any/all cost while AIPAC occupies the top rung.
Thank you Mr. Nader.
Your last two paragraphs are so very disturbing because they point out that real change on the war in Afghanistan is not on the table.
I wish that Obama would do what Mikhail Gorbachev did with regard to Afghanistan.
Does the $1 million cost per soldier factor in the costs of their drug addictions, physical and mental diabilities that will be costing taxpayers and the soldiers' families lots of money for many decades ???