U.S. Airstrikes Aid Iraqi Army in Basra
Iraqis gathered on Friday at the site was (sic) what was said to be a missile strike by United States forces, backing Iraqi forces, in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood.
The New York Times
From the outset it's been obvious that the occupation of Iraq ain't about the price of oil, it's about where that oil is going to get sold. The US strategy has from the outset been to build large, permanent bases in Iraq, and then to pull back into those bases. Once a government of US choosing has been established with a military able enough to handle the urban combat, US ground troops will cease to participate and US air support will be used to prop up the proxy government in whatever civil wars and insurgencies crop up. Oil will be very expensive, but there will be oil. The current energy magnates' fortunes will be secure. Civilian casualties will be very high since "smart" bombs ain't really all that smart. US casualties will be very minimal since shootin' jets down with RPGs is pretty tough. The economy will be very good for the elite, but will suck for everyone else as the slide from the middle class continues and the gap increases.
As this Shiite civil war develops, the litmus test for the presidential candidates is the position they take on this issue and the extent to which they are willing to discuss openly and honestly an imperialist policy that is transparent to everyone really paying attention. Which of them will call out the corporate entities who stand most to gain by enabling our addiction to their product? I expect neither will. Vote for Ralph.
9 comments:
Vote for Ralph??? I think that's how we got here the first time around. I don't think I'm gonna sign on to that strategery.
I did notice that the US is trying to minimize casualties (for us) by relying on air strikes and letting the Iraqis shoot each other.
Can't ya feel the Surge working?
That air strategy goes back to the beginning of the war. It's really bad in Afghanistan. Early on, the British high command called the US rules of engagement "cowardly." But you miss the point. We'd have gotten to this same place with any of the democrats who shill for the corporations, too. Vote for anyone but a major party candidate. Just vote third party - vote for democracy over oligarchy. The system will respond if we tell it what we want. Listen to O'Bama - you'll hear him talk about withdrawing Amercan troops, but you won't hear him talk about erasing the American presence. McCain and whoever ends up opposing him will both talk the same imperialist strategy because it's a state-department strategy. They'll spin it differently, but the leash is in the same hands. Democrat? Republican? Two sides of the same coin. A vote for Ralph is a vote for democracy over oligarchy. A vote for either major party is a vote for the status quo - it's the same book, we just get to choose the dust cover.
Furthermore, it wasn't anyone voting for Ralph that caused Bush to win the 2000 election - the election was fixed in Florida and decided illegally by the Supreme Court. That's our democracy in action. As Arhundati Roy is always happy to point out, voting is just one of the trappings of democracy. Democracy is the extent to which the government acts in response to the people's needs and desires - the US is a highly undemocratic nation as is Ms. Roy's India.
I agree with Pete that voting for Ralph didn't get us here in the first place, but I have voted for Ralph the last two times and don't feel that has gotten me (or us) anywhere. I'm back to being willing to give the Democrats a chance. Don't see how they can do any worse, though whomever does get elected will sure have a big Bush mess to deal with. I am glad Ralph is in the race. At least someone will be putting forth a true progressive agenda. Now if only they would let him in the debates.
Saw a good PBS documentary last week about 1967 student demonstrations at the University of Wisconsin. They paralleled the domestic situation with a U. S. offensive in Vietnam at the same time. Very good. What I mainly came away with is that the powers that be learned one big lesson from Vietnam: control the media--don't let imperialist aggression be reported accurately to the folks back home.
Saw another good documentary, this one from Netflix, about the life and career of Howard Zinn. Well worth watching. His main point about presidential races is that it's mostly inconsequential entertainment. What really matters is what we do and accomplish in the ongoing struggle with the forces of repression, regardless of who is in the oval office.
Anyway, I hope Obama gets the Democratic nomination. If he does I'll vote for him. If Hillary gets it I'm not sure if I can bring myself to vote for her. I guess I could go back to my previous vote for Ralph thinking--that it's not really about us, it's about our children's children's children, and a viable third party would be a very good thing for them.
Sorry about those multiple postings. All I'm trying to do is find my way back to the Geek Squad main page.
I don't understand how anyone can say the US would be in the same place no matter who was in the Oval Office after the 2000 election. An Al Gore administration would not have been interchangeable with the Mayberry Machiavellis that were given the opportunity to respond to Bin Laden, Katrina, education, health care, tax policy, and so on.
The energy, passion, and commitment of the people that chose to vote and work for the Nader Campaign in 2000 was lost to the Democratic effort to keep the White House. The mesmerizing and unrelenting war on Gore waged by the MSM and acquiesced to by many in the liberal community was appalling. This abdication of responsibility made for a close race, which allowed the artless sleight of hand by James Baker, Jeb Bush, William Rehnquist and that essential bit player, Katherine Harris in stealing the 2000 election.
It certainly isn't the first election ever stolen. No doubt won't be the last. Sadly, this ass clown has arrived at this critical time in our history only to cause incredible suffering and loss to untold millions of people.
I think I am focused clearly on the point. Politics is the art of the possible. Voting isn't therapy. It's about making the sausage.
I agree with you Danny I'll vote for Obama if he gets the election. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is infinitely preferable to St. McCain (another object of press devotion). She'll get my vote before that waffling pile of anger mismanagement, McCain. To my way of thinking after the experience of the last eight years, we must avoid making the same mistake.
"I don't understand how anyone can say the US would be in the same place no matter who was in the Oval Office after the 2000 election."
I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. The only difference between democrats and republicans is style. They are two heads of the same beast. After 9/11, Americans just wanted to see someone's ass get blown up and either party would have happily obliged. In fact, as I recall the vote, both did.
Beyond that, the real agenda isn't set in the White House or the congress - the real agenda is set in the state dept., the pentagon, and, most importantly, on Wall Street. No matter who won the oval office and even without 9/11, the US was going to establish bases in the Middle East to protect its oil supply. That MO is old and pervasive - our basic, imperialist agenda is to develop the natural resources of other countries for our own economic purposes. Why do you think Guatemala, the richest agricultural area on the planet, is primarily farmed by agribusinesses who supply US markets while the indigenous people starve? Wall street arranged it that way and US air power protected it. Why do you think the US gives a shit what happens in Columbia? It's because government-sponsored terrorists are clearing the jungle of indigenous people so the land can be cleared and planted with pine trees to supply US paper and lumber mills. The Indian wars ain't quite over yet. We are a pirate nation and that's been a bipartisan effort.
Who sent a cruise missile into a pharmaceutical factory in east Africa, resulting in the immediate demise of all the civilian employees and the eventual demise of tens of thousands who died because the supply of drugs suddenly vanished? Bill Clinton, a democrat I believe. Who embargoed almost a million Iraqi children to death during his eight years in office? Bill Clinton, that's who. Obama is nicely idealistic and a fine salve for the conscience - he reminds us all of our last articulate, handsome, clean democratic president, John F. Kennedy who blithely sponsored the Vietnam Conflict and the Bay of Pigs, so don't expect the democrats to be the "kinder, gentler" party. They aren't - they're just the other half of the style show.
Therapy? Making sausage? That's a nice turn of phrase, Pahnoots, but it's also a bit insulting. Using the vote to try to encourage a third party so we can move toward a genuine democratic process is hardly therapy - instead, it's facing the harsh truth and using the vote for the only thing it's good for. Voting for the third party or anyone else not affiliated with the two-headed, corporate conglomerate is a vote for breaking the oligarchy that has usurped the reins. Voting for the third party is an act of faith in the system, a belief that if enough of us eventually do so, the system will respond because it isn't rigged. We can take back our country, but someone has to be in the first ranks. Voting for the third party is declaring that I won't settle for the lesser of two evils. Taking the half-rotted peach they keep handing out will never get our grandchildren the real fruit.
Take the red pill, Pahnoots. Realize that the two-party contest is a sham - the real third party, the defense contractors who ALL have employees in the Pentagon and in elected office and the multi-national corporations who are steadily turning this "classless" society into a two-class society, call the real shots. The republicans are just more brazen about following the agenda. The democrats tend to be more surreptitious, but their objectives are the same - get re-elected, and that don't happen if you don't play ball.
By the way, arranging comments with the most recent at the top might be counter-intuitive, but the opposite is counter-blogger. (scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll...............)
First, to your notes about the comments section. One of the first things I attempted to change was the comments order. Still working on it--it's not an among the automated controls. I'm pretty familiar with Internet publishing. Been doing it in one form or another for over ten years.
As to the rest of the screed, I'm uninterested in a political pillowfight. It wasn't my intention to insult you Pedro ("take the red pill"-please), but I won't idly abide an attack on the good people in the Democratic Party who continue to work for real change in this country. More power to you, but effective, positive change has emerged for people through the coalition that comprises the Democratic Party.
I thought you had succeeded - does Blogspot post the most recent comment last by default? Odd - I think most do the opposite. In order to change it, you're going to have to get into the PHP files in the template. I am aware of your experience in Internet publishing - you started about when I did. I just thought you had arranged the order of the comments since you wrote early on that you intended to so. I think most recent comment first is best.
As for the "pillow fight," I'm not sure what that is. I just know that if you look objectively at US behavior for the past century rather than getting caught up in the current squabbles that mesmerize the public, things look a lot different. I wasn't personally insulted by your "therapy" comment - I just think it's insulting to characterize anyone's heartfelt political beliefs as some kind of Quixotic attempt at washing one's hands of the matter in order to attain a sense of psychological composure.
Post a Comment