Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Next War
"I'm going to be killing people. I'm actually joining the Marines and will be doing this in real life."
War springs eternal. Compare the words of the 18-year-old boy quoted above by Philadelphia radio station WRTI, as he was wielding a pretend machinegun at a video-game parlor/Army recruiting center at a Philly shopping mall, with those of two neocons, Charles Robb and Charles Wald (retired senator and general, respectively), writing last month in the Washington Post:
"We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. . . . Instead, the administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran's nuclear and supporting military facilities."
We're running out of time to act, they add, turning the fear crank, ratcheting up the pressure like good used car salesmen. Iran could have a nuclear bomb by the end of the year, they warn, citing no evidence for this assertion. Evidence? They all but cried: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
With Adm. Mike Mullen's ambivalent acknowledgment several days ago on "Meet the Press" that the military indeed has a plan for invading Iran, to be used if necessary, "the next war" has begun, suddenly, to take shape in the media. No public input needed! We're the spectators here. Stay tuned. We'll bring it to you live.
Missing, of course -- of course! -- in any discussion of a no-nonsense military solution to Iran's nuclear intransigence is: A) the least reflection on the disastrous quagmire of the current wars, which were sold as quick-strike operations to eliminate immediate threats (which, in the case of Iraq, turned out not to exist); B) any assessment of the damage we have done, to the Afghans, the Iraqis or ourselves, or of the multi-trillion-dollar cost of these debacles; C) any reflection on our own hypocrisy (we have 5,113 nuclear warheads; our allies, including Israel, have as much as a thousand more), or a consideration of the logic of Iran's own self-protective instincts, i.e., that if they actually possess a bomb the U.S. is far less likely to invade their country.
Instead what we get is the grown-up, Ph.D.-level equivalent of the naïve 18-year-old Marine wannabe playing war at the Army's entrapment, I mean recruitment, center in Philadelphia. Effective, targeted strikes! This'll be awesome!
But more worrisome to me than neocon op-eds is the sense of inevitability -- indeed, reverence -- that accompanies "impartial" mainstream reportage of war, especially the war that hasn't been fought yet. The unspoken understanding is that war is a high-level, classified decision made in the public's interest but utterly divorced from its input or wishes.
In an essay published on AlterNet in March, Frank Joyce wrote: "Thanks to the superseding power of the transnational corporation, democracy ‘peaked' in the United States some time ago."
I fear he's right. The military-industrial consensus has no interest in democratic input. Consider the helplessness even of Dwight Eisenhower, whose famous warning about the military-industrial complex came in his farewell address, as he was surrendering the reins of power. He made his point as a private citizen, not as an elected official with a plan to curb it.
A little-discussed adjunct to the military-industrial complex is the entertainment industry, which, in the 50 years since Eisenhower issued his plea for awareness, has burrowed deep into the American and global psyche, turning violence into an ever more exhilarating abstraction. Thus the announcement of each virgin war generates a wave not of horror but excitement.
"A culture of killing and violence has become embedded in human consciousness," writes Michel Chossudovsky. This means that World War III, perhaps set off by a U.S. invasion of Iran, is possible.
But there is a latent counterforce to all of the above. The industrial wars of the last century have created an extraordinary blowback problem for the global war profiteers. In the United States, we don't dare reinstitute the draft. Not only was the draft the focal point of the antiwar movement, but the draftee Army eventually rebelled against the war and brought it to a halt. There is a huge antiwar movement in the U.S. and around the globe, awaiting a single spark of ignition to manifest in the 21st century.
My fervent hope is that this happens sooner rather than later -- that the mere threat of an invasion of Iran is enough to shatter the corporate war consensus. Let's take geopolitics out of the hands of the profiteers. Let's reclaim our democracy before it's too late.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
132 Comments so far
Show AllYeah we have a f&^$ed up government but it's not a dictatorship. If Vashkar Kim wants a Parliamentary rule or a one man rule, there's other countries for that.
Whats to want' We in fact have a Dictatorship, Before you go nuts Obomber is not the Dictator, look a bit behind and to the left, in the shadow there you can almost make him out.
>^^<
I submit Trotsky is worth quoting. For example:
"Fascism is nothing but capitalist reaction."
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies."
"Life is not an easy matter... You cannot live through it without falling into frustration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raises you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness."
"Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravity."
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man."
"The depth and strength of a human character are defined by its moral reserves. People reveal themselves completely only when they are thrown out of the customary conditions of their life, for only then do they have to fall back on their reserves."
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
"The historic ascent of humanity, taken as a whole, may be summarized as a succession of victories of consciousness over blind forces - in nature, in society, in man himself."
"There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances."
Trotsky was the best of a bad lot - which is probably why he was killed by his associates.
On second thought, perhaps I need to study him beyond the quote VK used. Thanks.
Shawn Berry,
Take this on some sincere advisement: The study of Trotsky's life thought and work would be wasted on your ilk for reasons too obvious to reiterate. I would stick to something more apropos, more remedial like, "Dick And Jane Go to the Store ."
What makes you believe that what you failed to understand once by an inappropriate knee-jerk reaction to the mere mention of Trotsky's name will come any easier upon a further, deeper perusal? Trust me on that one.
Here is another 'tid bit' from the Communist tradition for your delectation:
"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy."
–(Mao-Tse Tung)
Sioux Rose,
You took Trotsky out of context to suit your anarchist agenda. You're not happy with SF and want more communism? Go live in Venezuela where Hugo will keep you happy. Even progressives don't approve of communism here. I wouldn't want to live in a communist system that takes away from hard working Americans and gives to those who don't deserve it. Close the borders, stop the outsourcing, stop giving to the rich, and stop killing job growth. I want freedom, not getting robbed. Russia failed because of communism. Europe is failing because of communism. Venezuela will be failing from communism too sooner or later.
I hardly know where to begin.
"I wouldn't want to live in a communist system that takes away from hard working Americans and gives to those who don't deserve it."
What do you think is done with your taxes (when you pay taxes - no offense) - redistribution to those who many conservatives think are undeserving. The reason? To buy off any trouble with the natives. The 'poor' are kept quiet with 'welfare' the middle-class with social security. It's the same argument conservatives have traditionally made against the government assisting the poor and destitute or those otherwise in need - often in need for reasons beyond their control.
"I want freedom, not getting robbed."
Really? You don't sound like you know what you want. What would you do with freedom? Traditionally, 'freedom' has been defined as the state of not being a slave. What it sounds like you desire is freedom to succeed, but not the freedom to fail. You might as well desire thunder without lightning.
"Europe is failing because of communism."
Nonsense. By what criteria is europe failing? I submit that these days they're doing far more damage to themselves with the EU - and by most measures are doing better than we are in the US.
Communism, apart from all the propaganda, is not a leftist takeover of government - though that's they way the bolshiviks expressed it to gain popular support - rather like every candidate for president in the US running against 'those evil people in Washington' to get elected. The successful ones become those evil people Washington and the next crop of political turnips run against them. If you actually examine what happens/happened with the 'communists', you will find that communism has far more in common with fascism than socialism, and far more in common with the US than you might find comfortable to contemplate.
Finally, I'm confused. You rightly condemn communism (for what may be specious reasons), yet under communism, for all its flaws, you'd at least have a job, the borders would be tightly closed (no pesky dusky-skinned foreigners threatening your livelihood), the rich wouldn't be getting money - all things you seen to support. Sounds like you might be more at home in a communist society than you think.
But don't be discouraged, keep stating what you think and either having it confirmed or demolished, that's the starting point of learning anything.
Ok ok, I don't know what communism really feels like but I'm only convinced so far that it's a killer. I don't like the way our capitalist system is running but how can we be sure that communism will really work well? Look what happened to USSR unless I'm missing some details. If communism has more in common with fascism, then it only confirms me fear. What is the EU you mentioned?
Edit: I just discovered some socialism in my state. State owned bank, state owned flour mill, being the "Saudi Arabia" of wind energy, and access to voting third parties are great starters for socialism. Maybe there's more. Methink Vashkar Kim should consider moving from rotten San Francisco to North Dakota and reconsider his vendetta against the USA.
Ignorant people react to sagacious posts by reacting to buzzwords they have heard from the paid corporate shills, who are constantly bombarding the brainwashed populace with their lies on TV and the radio.
I lived in Germany many, many years ago, and could have become a German citizen. I came back for various reasons; I didn't think the U.S. would go down for the count.
It is the worst mistake I have ever made in my life. Many Americans stayed, including many GIs at the time. I mean to emphasize 'many.'
By the way, I am not of German descent.
For different reasons I second VK's suggestion; don't waste your time on Trotsky. He's an interesting character, but an anachonism who's relevance has already disappered down the memory hole. Whatever value he might have had has long ago been expunged from western culture. Better you should spend your time studying what's relevant to you - not what might get you points in some esoteric argument with people you don't know or care about - namely, us.
>>"I'm going to be killing people. I'm actually joining the Marines and will be doing this in real life."<<
Obviously one of our best and brightest.
I've pretty much lost hope.
Killing is fun.
-- General James Mattis
I would like to ask Mattis: "Is dying fun?"
"Today is a good day to die" Spartian proverb.
>^^<
"...Mattis: "Is dying fun?"
I hope he finds that out FIRST.
Like I have said before, the American people have become bloodthirsty, grasping and ungracious!
I suggest you qualify this a bit. Not all Americans are 'bloodthirsty, grasping and ungracious.' I suppose it can be argued that our culture is 'bloodthirsty, grasping and ungracious' (I certainly wouldn't argue against this) but that doesn't describe many of us.
Not to be rude, but your comment seems a bit contradictory, when you say that, "Not all Americans are ,grasping and ungracious" and then go on to say that our culture might be this way, but that doesn't describe many of us. You, I, and everybody else is our culture.
Would you please qualify the following?
What is you personal belief as it applies to the military as an 'acceptable' and 'honorable' profession?
What is your stance on acceptable military action?
Do you support the troops under certain conditions?
Someone needs to create a war video game that shoots back. Then, maybe we'd be on to something.
If little tiny tasers could shoot back out....ah, then soldier" wanna be's" might be" never be's."
From the article:
"...two neocons, Charles Robb and Charles Wald (retired senator and general, respectively), writing last month in the Washington Post:
"'We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. . . . Instead, the administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran's nuclear and supporting military facilities.'"
The same old bullshit ad nauseum year after year after year, from the same self-serving lying bastards who make a living by Sophistry.
What Iranian "nuclear program"? The nuclear power program to which they are entitled under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory (while Israel is not), or the likely fictitious nuclear weapons program the U.S. eternally accuses Iran of secretly possessing but which the United Nations inspection teams have never found in any definitive way?
If the Shah of Iran had not been overthrown in 1979 by the (partially French-backed) Shi'ite revolution, Iran would have fully-operational nuclear power plants capable of producing fissile material for weapons fully supported by the United States, representing a completely different "imbalance of power" than exists today. The West would be calling Iran a truly secular and modern nation, and LIFE Magazine would be showing full-page bikini-clad Iranian beaches and casinos.
One final point. I am opposed to nuclear power plants and have been for decades. I think that people like Harvey Wasserman, author of Solartopia..., have it far more right than wrong. I doubt that humans are capable of preventing the destructive effects of the use of nuclear power (including one of its byproducts, so-called Depleted Uranium) except at an extremely small scale. Nevertheless, under international law today, Iran has a legal right to construct nuclear power plants.
One argument used by neocons who oppose Iranian nuclear power has been that they are an oil-rich nation so why would they need nuclear power.
Answer: oil is economically fungible, and the world is allegedly running out of it. Like others, Iran can sell its oil to the world, as its primary Medium of Exchange. By this calculation, a local nuclear power plant replaces that sale of oil to, say, Japan. (The House of Saud can't do this because nuclear power plants require huge water cooling systems and they just do not have the water.) As a nation-state, Iran is just spectacularly located geographically, etc., and the Imams know this.
*****
Then there is that damnable Global Warming. Here, the construction of nuclear power plants helps not at all.
Iran has the right to build a nuclear power plant. But what would it say to the world if they simply acknowledged SCIENCE and offered to switch to wind, solar, conservation, etc? Ditto Israel, etc. (Do not expect this offer from the Powers That Be.)
The entire nuclear cycle is a death wish. Oppenheimer was right in 1945: "Now I am become death." The use of nuclear energy on the Earth is Entropic. Physicists of all religions know this. Low-level radiation (and I am aware of the issue of what "low-level" means) promotes organic death.
Does anyone wonder why, when the most studied philosophers and politicians on the planet call for the dismantling of ALL nuclear weapons, globally, the MEDIA concentrate on Iran, which may or may not be trying to construct a BOMB. Oh Dear:
"Now I am become suicide."
It would appear that humans seek to find "truth" as it may be known to carbon-based organic creatures, but so far there is no evidence that we have. Growing a whole mouse from a skin-cell doesn't cut it. That's just a reaction to the innate superiority of the virus.
Humans peaked at around the time of Socrates in the West, a bit earlier in the East (I'll give them a couple of gurus). But, essentially it has been downhill ever since. (If you think British Rock was going to overcome the Universe, like the Queen, feel free to be an idiot.).
Our textbooks tell us we are at the top of the food chain [eating a lot of mercury-tainted tuna.] Try thinking of yourself at the bottom of the food chain. Like phytoPLAYnkton in the Gulf.
But, hey, we fixed the problem and the oil is nearly gone, disappeared like Reagan, Ford, Rumsfeld, and Cheney.
Go ahead, Israel: Bomb Iran you innately self-destructive Jews (and I am a Jew).
As my grandfather a Hamburg medical doctor with the most advanced medical equipment available at the time, said,
IDIOTS.
Best regards to George Mitchell... Glad to hear he's a baseball fan.
-30-
The Pentagon's ability to consider an attack on Iran, or any other country beyond Canada or Mexico, depends on an unchallenged control of the seas through its eleven carrier battle groups. Recent development by China of what appears to be an effective carrier-killing missile,however, could mean the end of this dominance. Reportedly, the new Dong Feng 21-D would use conventional, not nuclear, warheads to knock out carriers at a range of 900 miles. Iran already buys earlier generations of Chinese missiles and would be a logical customer for this one, given China's growing need for oil. And, of course, such a missile would not have to be used to provide a deterrent to carriers.
The irony is that China can afford to develop such a weapon thanks to the billions we annually export to them.
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
If it ever comes online. The technology is claimed to be 10 years away - which makes one wonder why the story came out recently.
Either way, it's the natural interaction of offense and defense. Carriers are offensive weapons which, for decades, had no counterforce. China may be countering it in the future. Of course all this means (to the fearful in government) is that the US must spend more dollars building another offensive weapon and the dance goes on.
You also have to consider this.
The Pentagon has long claimed an upcoming "crises" due to some new weapon system in order to justify more Military spending.
They did this with the "Bomber Gap" and "The Missile Gap" during the Cold war.
There will be "urgent meetings" to deal with this "New threat to American security" and then a bill passed to increase Miltary spending by 300 billion to deal with it.
The plan to crush Iraq and to crush Iran, and a couple of other Middle Eastern countries thereafter,by employing American money and might to do so, originated in Tel Aviv. Therefore, it is beyond the pale of rational discussion. It will be done. We, in our glorious democracy, can only sit and wait for the carnage to begin, and for the price of oil to hit $6.00 per gallon. Thanks again Israel. Some things never change, except for the new highs in gasoline prices, and the numbers of innocents murdered by Zionist wars. A truly ethical people.
I often wonder how these hypocritical "conservative" politicians can justify cutting and restricting federal aid and relief programs such as universal health care, citing "a low budget, a poor economy, and just not enough money to waste on that" as their reason. War costs, on average, far more than a national health care plan would even come close to amounting, and is not profitable to the general nation. If these politicians actually cared a single bit about how much money is in our treasury and how our economy was doing, they would not only pull us out of all of our current wars, they would also cut diplomatic ties to warring countries who request our aid (especially financial).
We, as what was once an intelligent and modern nation, need to look out less for the interests of others, and more for ourselves. We must question Blackwater and all corporate military groups running amok like a black market in D.C. We must develop AMERICA before we develop South Vietnam or South Korea or Afghanistan or Israel or most of Western Europe. We must shed our narrow, idiotic and self destructive Cold War rationale that is honestly far too rickety and out-dated for the 21st century. We may remain as ambassadors, as a peaceful nation who will surely help to negotiate between warring sides while remaining a comfortable financial, corporate, and military distance away.
Isolationism almost began, but our nation ignorantly brushed it away to turn to financially exhaustive military measures. Wilson would be rolling in his grave if he knew the deeds our corporate government was committing in the name of false "democracy and modernity." The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have topped $1 trillion, with $33 billion more being spent this year on them. Comparatively, the health care plan, if both pieces of legislation are enacted, is $143 billion, a paler number by a large amount. America needs to get its head out of its ass, look at the rising costs it allows dark, shadowy figures above us to manipulate, and take action by taking less action.