That's a pretty good case study in "why you should never read counterpunch". I read it up to the point where they call economic sanctions an act of war. Bwuuuh?
More evidence that the radical left is kookoo for cocoapuffs. Look, man, all that anger and righteous rage doesn't do you squat if you are waiting for a perfect candidate that agrees with you 100% of everything; that person doesn't exist!
But, does that mean that the far left disowns Warren for being "strong on defense" and championing foreign policy status quo? Is Elizabeth Warren, of all people, a centrist?
*gasp*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for the entire far left, but I "disowned" her (well, I never supported her) back when my local union had to bribe her with $5,000 to get her to visit one of our picket lines.
But anyway, Citizen Cool nominated her as a potential member of the far left. Do you think she's a member of the far left?
Despite the right-wing memes that she supports raising the minimum wage to $22/hour (that's not what she said) and mocks her for that whole "you didn't build that" speech (about restoring Clintonian capital gains tax level, IIRC), she's pretty much an old-skool liberal. Certainly more left than anything the national stage has seen in a while (but not on foreign policy), but far left?
(Btw, the sanctions against Iran are terrible, meting out hardship on the most vulnerable sectors of Iranian society--the aged, the sick, the infants--in order to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, which, last I checked, they weren't even doing--although I admit it's been a while since I checked. I happily oppose the sanctions and don't mind at all as being thought of as coocoo for cocoa puffs.)
It's too bad you didn't finish the piece, though, because then you would've seen this little nugget of an anecdote from the late Hitch:
"When Obama campaigned for President, he made no attempts to conceal his positions on Afghanistan or Pakistan. Right before the election, the late Christopher Hitchens, an Obama supporter, argued that the joke wasn’t on him, an adamant War on Terror enthusiast, but on the young antiwar protestors lining up behind the promise of Hope and Change, 'American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.'
"He was right. If Elizabeth Warren becomes Senator, her critics stand to be correct as well, although her potentially toxic votes on war will be overshadowed by those enduring right-wing mantras: Massachusetts liberal, bluest of blue states…
Then what?"
I finished reading it after commenting and yeah I noticed the Hitch comment. I'm not nearly as gun-go as Hitch became post 9/11, but I appreciate his perspective on Islam and the war on terror.
I just think that religion is far too complicated a thing to pin all the violence on; no struggle but the class struggle and all that.
She's relatively far left on domestic stuff though. I mean, left for a mainstream politician, about as far left as they go actually for mainstream national politics. Unfortunately the current spectrum goes much further to the right.
To kind of tie this back around (it was a bit of a digression) to Syria, I think the way things are progressing are basically the best way. Even if Obama looks weak or silly, a little bit of the old saber rattling sometimes does the trick.
You remember way back before we invaded Iraq? Bush asked congress for similar special provisions, because without such provisions threats of going in and unseating Saddam would be a threat without teeth. A lot of politicians said afterwards they were basically bamboozled to, told the administration didn't want to go to war but needed the power to do so or the threat would have nothing to back it up. And then bam we invaded.
Which is why I totally get that response to Obama right now. And all the other criticisms. I think this was sort of the administration's plan all along; they just needed leverage.
I just think that religion is far too complicated a thing to pin all the violence on; no struggle but the class struggle and all that.
Pedantry:
It's "No war but the class war."
There's a panoply of struggles that the far left has always supported.
Bloomberg's sort of an exception. He's pushing gun control harder than any other political figure, but it's a single issue thing. Elsewhere he's moderate at best.
While pushing gun control, his administration also oversaw stop and frisk.
Left or not left?
I just think that religion is far too complicated a thing to pin all the violence on; no struggle but the class struggle and all that.
Pedantry:
It's "No war but the class war."
There's a panoply of struggles that the far left has always supported.
Well I've heard it both ways, but since I don't support violent revolution I think I'll use mine.
And I probably take away from that slogan something different. I take it to mean (as Marx did) that all conflict between individuals or groups is, in some way, a manifestation of the power differential (real or perceived) between them. The poor will always resent the wealthy, and the wealthy will always look down on the poor.
Furthermore, to me at least, it represents the idea that what makes people angry is not getting having their needs and wants met, and concentrated wealth only exacerbates that. As such, those with more resources (wealth, etc.) are able to afford themselves exceptions to any rule that society might otherwise enforce.
To me its a rallying cry to focus on the issues that matter and are actually central to our circumstances, those of class politics. Everything else is used, by either or both "sides", as wedge issues to detract from the fact that we're all being fleeced by the money power elite.
Bringing it back around again, the same is true with the Jhihadis/Islamists/whatever that are fighting in Syria. There are generations of young men that have bought into the narrative that the west has ruined everything that was once the Muslim world through their corrupting influence, and were sold this by rich oil barons getting fat off their labor. The US has participated in this charade like a dupe, happily assuming the part of the villain and being prodded into playing the part with aplomb.
Unfortunately, regardless of the idiocy of the past 60 years of Middle East foreign policy, there are existential threats to the US (of which we were reminded this past week) which is all those in power need to perpetuate global war.
Yeah, I'm really trying to figure out why the conventional wisdom on this is that it's a horrible failure for Obama.
I'm not much in touch with conventional wisdom, but expanded quote from the Naked Capitalism correspondence with an unnamed Beltway Insider:
If he adopts the Putin peace plan, he doesn’t look that bad. His approvals have taken a hit, but he restores the Constitutional system, gets rid of Syrian chemical weapons, accidentally rejuvenates multilateralism, and can get his base back. Not too shabby, actually, as long as he learns to say Yes. Politically, it could be like the Bay of Pigs, without the fiasco. That hurt JFK politically, but not too badly. Obama could even use this as an opportunity to clean house within his administration, which he probably won’t. This could turn into a much uglier situation for the President, if he refuses to back down or learn from his mistakes.
"Biggest Loser: John Kerry
It’s hard to describe what a clusterf@*~ John Kerry has been as Secretary of State. The Bush administration was terrible and sucked at nearly everything, but they knew how to roll out a war. Kerry has been a bumbling moron at PR, at intelligence, at diplomacy, and at Congressional relations. It seems like every time he opens his mouth he makes the case that the US doesn’t know what it is doing and it should stay out of Syria. And that’s not all – he’s also been publicly overruled by his boss. Most people in DC, after watching these past two weeks, are saying “thank God he was never President”. You can survive a lot in DC, but you can’t survive becoming a laughingstock. Obama doesn’t really have a lot of loyalty to Kerry, so he could be gone after the Syria situation settles down.
Other losers: Samantha Power, Susan Rice, liberal interventionists
The “I feel guilty for Rwanda” school of soft-headed true believers have been embarrassed over Syria. UN Ambassador Samantha Power was seen as dismissing the ability to do anything with diplomacy just before Putin sandbagged her and Kerry with a deal offering everything the US purportedly wants. It turns out the liberal interventionists are just as cowboy-like as the Bush crowd, but they somehow managed to seem dumber and more self-righteous about it.
Well I've heard it both ways, but since I don't support violent revolution I think I'll use mine.
And I probably take away from that slogan something different. I take it to mean (as Marx did) that all conflict between individuals or groups is, in some way, a manifestation of the power differential (real or perceived) between them. The poor will always resent the wealthy, and the wealthy will always look down on the poor.
[Shrugs]
I've never heard it, and a google search reveals nothing. As opposed to the class war one, which gets 476 million results.
Either way, Marx never used either phrase. I believe it was originally an anarchist slogan and Karl and Fred supported quite a few wars--the American Civil War, the German invasion of Schleswig-Holstein, the Germans in the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War, etc.
I've never heard it, and a google search reveals nothing. As opposed to the class war one, which gets 476 million results.
Either way, Marx never used either phrase.
You must have a different google than I do. I get 9 results for mine, and 229k for yours (most of which are "motiviational poster" memes and t-shirts).
I didn't mean to insinuate that it was a Marx quote, just that that very philosophy is central to Marx's. In Anthropology (presumably sociology) Marx is one of the 4 COGs (crusty old guys) and a "Marxian" analysis of social and cultural phenomena is one in which you analyze something through that particular lens.
I don't know if you remember the paper on Shiva worship I sent you, but that was a Marxian analysis. In which, contrary to how it looks on the surface, the Shiva religion is used as a tool of the patriarchy/elites to persuade/coerce/force women into roles of subservience. Marxian analysis if central to my ongoing fascination with the transformation of early Christianity (a decentralized, egalitarian, charismatic movement) into the establishment religion of ancient Rome (when it became one and the same with the pre-existing patriarchy).
/digress
I've never heard it, and a google search reveals nothing. As opposed to the class war one, which gets 476 million results.
Either way, Marx never used either phrase.
You must have a different google than I do. I get 9 results for mine, and 229k for yours (most of which are "motiviational poster" memes and t-shirts).
How strange.
Struggle (Which does actually get results, but none that I see actually use the phrase)
War (Which now says 559 million)
Computers. I don't understand.
In other news, I don't think I can buy the "they were just looking for leverage" theory. The French brethren have posted about how gung-ho Hollande and co. were and how they looked ridiculous after the US "let them down."
I can't prove it, obviously, but I think that if the Britishiznoid Parliament hadn't voted down Cameron (and Labour's) war bills, the missiles would've already flown.
So, Comrade Jeff, I think that's where Obama looking like a loser comes from. The UN said it was illegal; he said he was going to do it anyway. Britain backed down; fine, I'll get Congress to support me. Congress didn't give him carte blanche, Kerry ran his mouth, Putin jumped all over it.
In other news, Juan Cole seems to accept parts of the Luttwak thesis.
"Are there any grand strategy considerations behind the Obama administration’s desire to bomb Syria? Yes, though they rest on doubtful premises.
The increasing importance of al-Qaeda-linked radical Sunni fundamentalist groups to the civil war in the north of Syria has posed a dilemma for the Obama administration, which began calling for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad in late spring of 2011.
The US now doesn’t want the regime to fall relatively quickly as in Libya, because the al-Qaeda affiliates have become too powerful and could well take over Damascus. Highly undesirable. The US does not want that outcome, and neither do Israel or Saudi Arabia, the two pillars of US policy in the region.
So US policy is to join with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to encourage a second front at Deraa with anti-al-Qaeda fighters a la sons of Iraq and limiting access for heavy weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra at the northern front by intercepting them in Turkey. Turkey and Qatar are upset with this policy and both try to subvert it, undisturbed by the al-Qaeda tendencies of their allies."
Marxian analysis if central to my ongoing fascination with the transformation of early Christianity (a decentralized, egalitarian, charismatic movement) into the establishment religion of ancient Rome (when it became one and the same with the pre-existing patriarchy).
If you haven't run across it already, Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity is the Marxist classic on the subject. It's pretty old, though.
Google tailors results based on history and locale. Get used to it.
And now I know.
Are these the same type of brethren as the ones posting about how Obama's a warmonger and how it's a such big loss for him to get most of what he claimed to want without actually starting a war?
If they are, I didn't notice it.
I'm not going through Comrade le Couard's posts again, but I don't see The Black Raven calling Obama a warmonger, so, "no."
And now I know.Google tailors results based on history and locale. Get used to it.
Also try the searches with quotes around them.
Thanks for the book link tho. Maybe some day when I don't have like 100 pages a day to read for school.
Still, unless you do hold the position that Obama really wanted to attack and the chemical weapons were just a pretext, whether faked or not and whatever his motivation for attack, it's really for me to see achieving more than his stated goals as a defeat. What's the downside?
I guess it depends on which of his stated goals you take at face value.
August 31: "If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?” Washington Post
September 2: "It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region." Guardian
If the red line was the "use" of chemical weapons and he used chemical weapons than why is he backing down? Isnt the horse already out of the barn. People already died from it??
As for Warren being a hawk and Markey voting present. What are the odds they both vote no if the president is a republican. I'd bet a kidney its 100%. Markey only said no long after it was decided there would be no vote. The silence from Hollywood on the whole Syria thing is not shocking to me as i truly believe there would have been protests if the president was a republican.
As for Warren being a hawk and Markey voting present. What are the odds they both vote no if the president is a republican. I'd bet a kidney its 100%
Not only is Ed Markey the boringest Massachusetts Democrat speaker I've had to suffer through at a union meeting, he voted for the AUMF against Iraq in 2002.
When can I pick up that kidney?
Right but the pressure on the AUMF was overwhleming where in this case it isnt.
Are you saying I can't have your kidney?
|
Nah, Assad and Putin have rooked us real good. Assad doesn't care whether or not he can use chemical weapons in the future, he care about whether he can win the civil war and stay in power. A U.S. attack would have the potential of making that harder for him. But if he agrees to the Russian plan, somebody is going to have to help him secure all those weapons. That means working *with* and *for* his army. That means that there will be a need for his army to still be functional and intact for the whole weapon-securing operation. Which means that Assad will have to still be around for it all.
So he's not only prevented a U.S. attack on his forces -- which would be at least a minor inconvenience, and could potentially lead to more escalation against him -- but he's also flipped the situation so that his continued survival is now crucial to "securing" his chemical weapons. It's a pretty nice move.
And if he also wants to make sure to still have some chemical weapons left over afterward, all he's got to do is hide some now. It's a civil war; things go missing all the time.
Anyone else starting to think that Putin and Obama just switched Good Cop and Bad Cop roles for the hell of it?
Anyone else starting to think that Putin and Obama just switched Good Cop and Bad Cop roles for the hell of it?
were relations between the countries warmer, I'd buy it, but not as they are currently. What's really cracking me up is the "how dare this warmongering president want to get us involved in another conflict!" change to "how dare this incompetent president go back on his word and not punish a tyrant that uses chemical weapons!" in less than a week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less than an HOUR!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The government is saving down every scrap of data they get about everything you do. If you ever get problematic, this data will be scrutinized to see what dirt they have on you.
As someone who was in the military, and has seen the government in action, I can assure you that it isn't organized or efficient enough to be a threat in this way.
|
The government is saving down every scrap of data they get about everything you do. If you ever get problematic, this data will be scrutinized to see what dirt they have on you.As someone who was in the military, and has seen the government in action, I can assure you that it isn't organized or efficient enough to be a threat in this way.
Oh but it is. It is organized when it's something that it needs and can find useful. It is simply crap when it has to take care of it's people.
|
What's really cracking me up is the "how dare this warmongering president want to get us involved in another conflict!" change to "how dare this incompetent president go back on his word and not punish a tyrant that uses chemical weapons!" in less than a week.
Come on. Surely, the fact that Big O surrendered in the face of the wise public opinion should be counted as a victory for human rights everywhere, with only peaceful and happy tomorrow for the Syrian people. More than a few posters here should be delighted in such a wonderful outcome.
|
|
Oh but it is. It is organized when it's something that it needs and can find useful. It is simply crap when it has to take care of it's people.The government is saving down every scrap of data they get about everything you do. If you ever get problematic, this data will be scrutinized to see what dirt they have on you.As someone who was in the military, and has seen the government in action, I can assure you that it isn't organized or efficient enough to be a threat in this way.
Based on my experience of big structures, both private companies and public services, there is absolutely no way that a government can be efficient and organized. Entropy and human nature at work are pretty amazing things to behold.
|
|
Oh but it is. It is organized when it's something that it needs and can find useful. It is simply crap when it has to take care of it's people.The government is saving down every scrap of data they get about everything you do. If you ever get problematic, this data will be scrutinized to see what dirt they have on you.As someone who was in the military, and has seen the government in action, I can assure you that it isn't organized or efficient enough to be a threat in this way.
|
|
If the red line was the "use" of chemical weapons and he used chemical weapons than why is he backing down? Isnt the horse already out of the barn. People already died from it??More people could die?
The point of the red line, at least officially, was to provide a deterrent, both to Assad and to others who might want to use chemical weapons. A actual strike might do that, but so will seeing the one who used them forced to give them up.
If Assad does turn over his chemical arsenal, he will obviously be unable to continue to use them. Mission accomplished.
Of course the key there is "if". If this is just a stalling tactic and Assad either refuses to act promptly or only with unacceptable conditions, I'd expect to see the strikes carried out. Probably with more international (and maybe even domestic) support, if he's given the chance and doesn't take it.
I think that international support will be hard to come by. I think that most of the world is a little sick and tired of the "world police" as the U.S. tends to get called these days.
If Assad turns over his weapons (yeah right), good. If not, the UN should intervene. It's high time UN grew a spine and started to ignore Russia, China and the U.S. and to do what is right.
Anyone else starting to think that Putin and Obama just switched Good Cop and Bad Cop roles for the hell of it?were relations between the countries warmer, I'd buy it, but not as they are currently. What's really cracking me up is the "how dare this warmongering president want to get us involved in another conflict!" change to "how dare this incompetent president go back on his word and not punish a tyrant that uses chemical weapons!" in less than a week.
Everything Obama does is wrong. Its why they apply so many subjective adjectives to him instead of listing actual actions that are problematic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
If the red line was the "use" of chemical weapons and he used chemical weapons than why is he backing down? Isnt the horse already out of the barn. People already died from it??More people could die?
The point of the red line, at least officially, was to provide a deterrent, both to Assad and to others who might want to use chemical weapons. A actual strike might do that, but so will seeing the one who used them forced to give them up.
If Assad does turn over his chemical arsenal, he will obviously be unable to continue to use them. Mission accomplished.
Of course the key there is "if". If this is just a stalling tactic and Assad either refuses to act promptly or only with unacceptable conditions, I'd expect to see the strikes carried out. Probably with more international (and maybe even domestic) support, if he's given the chance and doesn't take it.
I think that international support will be hard to come by. I think that most of the world is a little sick and tired of the "world police" as the U.S. tends to get called these days.
If Assad turns over his weapons (yeah right), good. If not, the UN should intervene. It's high time UN grew a spine and started to ignore Russia, China and the U.S. and to do what is right.
That's not the UN. It's not a matter of growing a spine, it's a matter of international law. Possibly bad international law, but that's what it is nonetheless.
The permanent members of the security council have veto powers. The General Assembly doesn't have the authority to take military action. OR do much else really.
That's sort of like saying the US House should start ignoring the Senate and the President and just pass and enforce laws on its own. It doesn't make any sense.
Then the mistake was giving them veto powers in the first place. They should be taken away. Everyone should have a single vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then the mistake was giving them veto powers in the first place. They should be taken away. Everyone should have a single vote.
Why would any major power sign onto that?
The UN votes to make the USA give away all its money to the pour counties. Now what?
|
|
Then the mistake was giving them veto powers in the first place. They should be taken away. Everyone should have a single vote.Why would any major power sign onto that?
The UN votes to make the USA give away all its money to the pour counties. Now what?
Yeah, that would be kinda illegal.
But then UN could vote to have USA not attack a country. Or then UN could do something about Russia's raging homophobia or china's treatment of it's citizens.But no, better to have superpowers do whatever the hell they want without any consequences.
Yeah, that would be kinda illegal.
All in favor of making it legal?
AYE.
Its legal now.
That's the problem with democracy, and why the folks at the top won't go for it.