" And today, you have the Democrats bombing Pakistan, destroying that country, too. So, just in this last decade, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria—all these countries have been—have been shattered."

Arundhati Roy on Iraq War’s 10th: Bush May Be Gone, But "Psychosis" of U.S. Foreign Policy Prevails

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the global justice activist and author Arundhati Roy joins us to discuss the war’s legacy. Roy is the author of many books, including "The God of Small Things," "Walking with the Comrades," and "Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers." Roy argues the imperial mentality that enabled the United States to invade Iraq continues today unabated across the world. "We are being given lessons in morality [by world leaders] while tens of thousands are being killed, while whole countries are shattered, while whole civilizations are driven back decades, if not centuries," Roy says. "And everything continues as normal.

Ask yourself this:

When was the last time the United States won a war? You know, it lost in Vietnam. It’s lost in Afghanistan. It’s lost in Iraq. And it will not be able to contain the situation. It is hemorrhaging. It is now—you know, of course you can continue with drone attacks, and you can continue these targeted killings, but on the ground, a situation is being created which no army—not America, not anybody—can control. And it’s just, you know, a combination of such foolishness, such a lack of understanding of culture in the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/1...si0F0.facebook

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's why Obama is phasing out the Afghan War as quickly as could be reasonably expected from the leader of an Empire. Granted that his use of drones is wrong, and fortunately it has become an issue.

There will still be thousands of troops and support staff there. And, it would serve us well to understand that there are numerous stealth wars going on under the direction of your man in the White House. Check out "Democracy Now's" latest that I posted.

Originally Posted by Deb C

There are always gray areas to every issue. However, the drone situation is out of hand and Obama has expanded what Bush started. This war on terror has become an excuse to do whatever we want in regards to killing people who may be suspect, including the innocent.

The United States has become the policeman of the world at a heavy price of civilian life. All Empires over reach it's super power. That, my friend, will be our eventual downfall.

Of course we've overreached! We have a center-right President, who has no credibilty in foreign policy without playing this game, and no one in the adminstration to alter the trend. That he hired a Republican to run the DoD says a lot ... even though, to his credit, the Republican isn't a mouth-breathing zealot.

An Eisnhower-type could stop this cold, but that's what it would take. Either that, or a President with massive intestinal fortitude. I see neither on the horizon.

Originally Posted by Deb C

There will still be thousands of troops and support staff there. And, it would serve us well to understand that there are numerous stealth wars going on under the direction of your man in the White House. Check out "Democracy Now's" latest that I posted.

In this day and age, it is unreasonable to expect that there would be no wars going on, even a few drone attacks in Yemen or Somalia, or that the leading Empire would not be involved in any of them. There is a movement and a long-term trend toward peace and global unity; that's what we can hope and work for.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In this day and age, it is unreasonable to expect that there would be no wars going on, even a few drone attacks in Yemen or Somalia, or that the leading Empire would not be involved in any of them. There is a movement and a long-term trend toward peace and global unity; that's what we can hope and work for.

Are you even reading what your writing? A few drone strikes? What the heck? There are way more than a few and human lives are being devastated. I seriously wonder if you would be seemingly shrudging these attacks off if George W was ordering them.

Right before I read your post, I was reading a warniing from my Code Pink friend. Please take the time to ponder what she writes.

Over ten years ago, the U.S. government used the pretext of 9/11 to invade and occupy an innocent country, Iraq. We can’t let our nation be dragged into another war of choice—this time in Iran.


I was in Baghdad when George Bush said it was time for Shock and Awe. The maid in our hotel in Baghdad buried her head in my chest, looked up to the sky and asked “How do I protect my children?” Even then, with my heart breaking, I couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead. Over five million Iraqis displaced and possibly a million dead, the deaths of so many young soldiers and over 100,000 horrific casualties, over a trillion dollars wasted.



But what is beyond understanding is that after ten years of suffering, we are on the brink of doing it all over again. We’re told about fictitious Iranian weapons of mass destruction—stories just like the ones that led us into Iraq. And now the Senate is moving forward with a resolution that provides a backdoor to war. Senate Resolution 65, already signed by over half the Senate, calls for the U.S. to offer military support to Israel if it chooses to invade Iran. This resolution would allow us to slip into another grotesque war without any public debate.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Are you even reading what your writing? A few drone strikes? What the heck? There are way more than a few and human lives are being devastated. I seriously wonder if you would be seemingly shrudging these attacks off if George W was ordering them.

No, he wouldn't. Unfortunately, like so many others he is perfectly fine with ignoring such things when it is his guy performing acts which are reprehensible by any standard. While Eric the Obtuse is the most obvious example from what is commonly known as the left but there is no shortage of conservatives who suffer from the same problem.

What's a few little drone attacks here and there?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's why Obama is phasing out the Afghan War as quickly as could be reasonably expected from the leader of an Empire. Granted that his use of drones is wrong, and fortunately it has become an issue.

Now even Obama is the leader of an "Empire"?

This brings back the memory a recent story out here in San Francisco: After Hugo Chavez died, one of our knucklehead Supervisors, one John Avalos, eulogized Chavez in predictably flowery terms, at one point alluding to Chavez's struggles against "U.S. imperialism."

Hey dude, if you don't like it in the "imperialist" U.S., then get the fuck out of here!

I can never truly support the left-wing agenda while its members keep talking like that. It's out-and-out disloyalty. Did the Republicans carry on like this during World War II?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

An Eisnhower-type could stop this cold, but that's what it would take. Either that, or a President with massive intestinal fortitude. I see neither on the horizon.

No he couldn't. Besides, that's not how it can to play out. The empire has to go (a simple mass balance tells you this) and right now it is still on the schedule, but it will need to be the GOP that provides the political push to make it happen. It cannot come from the Democrats. Any attempt at moderation on their part would bring the war-hawks on the Right back into the saddle and we are back with physics in charge of our destiny.

The GOP needs to learn that uber-hawkish no longer will work for them as a strategy to win elections. They first saw this in the election. They rolled out the Swift boat artillary and sent a volley. The shells bounced harmlessly off Obama's Teflon shield, and in the third debate their candidate licked the president's boots. Today the Republicans seem giddy at the idea of throwing the military under the sequester bus. As the trailing 30-year moving average of presidential occupation by party moves upward, the media, less certain of continued Republican dominance going forward, will gradually shift their lips from Republican asses to Democratic asses.

In other words, the political terrain as well as demographics are shifting in ways that are not favorable to the GOP as currently constituted. They will need a new structure as well as a strategy. Not immediately, but in the relatively near term. There still exists in the paleo conservative and libertarian slivers of the Right the nucleus for a new synthesis on Foreign policy. Bush pointed a way to harness religious conservatives constructively on domestic issues. The idea I am floating is look to the libertarians for guidance on foregin(but not domestic) policy and to evangelical Christain youth for guidance on domestic (but not foreign) policy. They have to get rid of Ayn Rand and the Israeli lobby as influences. Perhaps the new pope can shine a light in this area.

This would require an enormous amount of work, but there is time. Right now I note that the only person in both parties talking sense on foreign policy last year was Ron Paul. Now his son, who has expressed some similar sentiments and whom McCain has labeled an isolationist, has won the CPAC poll. Very early shoots that will probably wither, but intriguing nonetheless.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Now even Obama is the leader of an "Empire"?

Of course, how could he not be? He succeeded Bush II.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No he couldn't. Besides, that's not how it can to play out. The empire has to go (a simple mass balance tells you this) and right now it is still on the schedule, but it will need to be the GOP that provides the political push to make it happen. It cannot come from the Democrats. Any attempt at moderation on their part would bring the war-hawks on the Right back into the saddle and we are back with physics in charge of our destiny.

This is true if and only if the tide has not turned. I'm not sure it has either, but the melting of GOP support seems to indicate a change is underway at the very least. We're also war-weary. Will either of those keep us out of war? Not definitely, no. But I'm hearing and seeing the first indicatoins that we may have had enough. It takes a while to work through society, though, so it may be too early to cut the miltary is a serious way.

I still beleive that an untainted Petraeus could have swung the argument ... assuming he wanted to, of course.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

The GOP needs to learn that uber-hawkish no longer will work for them as a strategy to win elections. They first saw this in the election. They rolled out the Swift boat artillary and sent a volley. The shells bounced harmlessly off Obama's Teflon shield, and in the third debate their candidate licked the president's boots. Today the Republicans seem giddy at the idea of throwing the military under the sequester bus. As the trailing 30-year moving average of presidential occupation by party moves upward, the media, less certain of continued Republican dominance going forward, will gradually shift their lips from Republican asses to Democratic asses.

I agree that the politics of the media will shift when it benefits them, but I'm less sure that the GOP will walk away from the miltary. Their support lies to an unhealthy degree in parts of the country that rely on the miltary as the basis of the economy. Look at Tidewater Virginia - essentially seven contiguous cities and some surrounding suburbs. In that area, there are roughly 2 million people, very few Democrats in office, and over 30 military facilities. There are many such places in the country (though few as fully saturated). If the GOP moves away from the miltary, it can't be a universal move. The GOP has never done well in big-tent mode, so it will tear the party apart.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

In other words, the political terrain as well as demographics are shifting in ways that are not favorable to the GOP as currently constituted. They will need a new structure as well as a strategy. Not immediately, but in the relatively near term. There still exists in the paleo conservative and libertarian slivers of the Right the nucleus for a new synthesis on Foreign policy. Bush pointed a way to harness religious conservatives constructively on domestic issues. The idea I am floating is look to the libertarians for guidance on foregin(but not domestic) policy and to evangelical Christain youth for guidance on domestic (but not foreign) policy. They have to get rid of Ayn Rand and the Israeli lobby as influences. Perhaps the new pope can shine a light in this area.

H-m-m-m. Color me skeptical. The isolationist GOP existed in the past, but the United Fruit Company could still rely on the Marines to keep the "American" plantations in line and producing. That's not the model this time ... its oil and banking. I don't see isolationism meeting the needs of those underwriters.

I can see the Bible Thumpers setting the domestic agenda, though.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

This would require an enormous amount of work, but there is time. Right now I note that the only person in both parties talking sense on foreign policy last year was Ron Paul. Now his son, who has expressed some similar sentiments and whom McCain has labeled an isolationist, has won the CPAC poll. Very early shoots that will probably wither, but intriguing nonetheless.

The GOP seems to do best when they act in a muscular fashion. Neither Ron nor Rand Paul seems to fit that mold.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Now even Obama is the leader of an "Empire"?

This brings back the memory a recent story out here in San Francisco: After Hugo Chavez died, one of our knucklehead Supervisors, one John Avalos, eulogized Chavez in predictably flowery terms, at one point alluding to Chavez's struggles against "U.S. imperialism."

Hey dude, if you don't like it in the "imperialist" U.S., then get the fuck out of here!

I can never truly support the left-wing agenda while its members keep talking like that. It's out-and-out disloyalty. Did the Republicans carry on like this during World War II?

No, but World War Two was at least a justified war, even if we fought it in a way that resulted in unnecessary megadeaths. But the Japanese attacked us and Hitler was a threat to the continued existence of civilization and any kind of human decency.

Vietnam and Iraq were wars of choice for imperialist purposes. To be "loyal" to the real interests of this country was to oppose those wars.

The United States is certainly an empire. I would not agree with Avalos if he says the USA is evil and never does anything right. At least when Democrats are in the White House now, we get things a bit closer to right. But we are still an Empire, and too often we throw our power around with no thought to whom it injures.

I didn't like Chavez myself and would not eulogize him. He was a cult leader interested in his own power, and who didn't do most of what he promised. But we are not at war with Venezuela, so Chavez was not our enemy, and neither are the Venezuelan people or that largely-democratic country. And when Chavez called Bush the devil, I agreed with him. Some of Chavez' policies were at least on the side of the poor of his country. And he liked Obama.

Love it or leave it language is just cowardly. I would urge you to reconsider. If you don't like free speech, then move to Iran, or at least "get the fuck" out of San Francisco, for gee whiz. Pardon my French. Maybe move to relieve your own anger anyway. Such talk is not going to go away in that neighborhood!

We can be loyal to the US, and still criticize its imperialist behavior.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Are you even reading what your writing? A few drone strikes? What the heck? There are way more than a few and human lives are being devastated. I seriously wonder if you would be seemingly shrudging these attacks off if George W was ordering them.

Right before I read your post, I was reading a warning from my Code Pink friend. Please take the time to ponder what she writes.

Don't worry, I know Code Pink people too, and I'm with you. But if memory serves, there have only been a relatively few drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen. That doesn't mean I agree with them. But we don't need to exaggerate the extent to which the US is involved in wars all over the place.

And I certainly agree about Iran. If the Israelis want a bombing campaign against Iran, let them do it. What does "military support" mean, I wonder....

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Now even Obama is the leader of an "Empire"?

This brings back the memory a recent story out here in San Francisco: After Hugo Chavez died, one of our knucklehead Supervisors, one John Avalos, eulogized Chavez in predictably flowery terms, at one point alluding to Chavez's struggles against "U.S. imperialism."

Hey dude, if you don't like it in the "imperialist" U.S., then get the fuck out of here!

I can never truly support the left-wing agenda while its members keep talking like that. It's out-and-out disloyalty. Did the Republicans carry on like this during World War II?

Chavez did a lot to raise the people out of poverty. He was an example of a leader, that against all odds and much opposition, made huge strides in uplifting the people of his country. We should be so lucky.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't worry, I know Code Pink people too, and I'm with you. But if memory serves, there have only been a relatively few drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen. That doesn't mean I agree with them. But we don't need to exaggerate the extent to which the US is involved in wars all over the place.
.

Possibly we will get closer to the truth of drone strikes in those areas. What we hear from our government and those who have been experiencing the terror of our drones, are apparently two different stories. May the truth prevail.

Let the Voices of Drone Strike Victims Be Heard on Capitol Hill


On April 16th, let Sarah Knuckey and James Cavallaro testify about what they learned in Pakistan


On April 16, the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, is holding a hearing about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: about their Constitutionality, about their legality, about whether they are really in the interest of the United States, and about whether they are just and moral.
This is historic. There's never been such a Congressional hearing before.

That's going to change on April 16.

That means that Durbin's hearing could be a historic opportunity for Americans to learn something about what is actually going on with the drone strike policy.

That could be a game-changer. The status quo is that many Americans - in particular, many Democrats and liberals - have no idea what is going on under the "secret" drone strike policy. And this is reflected in polls.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/20-0

Originally Posted by Deb C

Chavez did a lot to raise the people out of poverty. He was an example of a leader, that against all odds and much opposition, made huge strides in uplifting the people of his country. We should be so lucky.

But I wasn't objecting to John Avalos' admiration for Chavez - but rather to his calling the United States "imperialist."

That's no better than Jeremiah Wright's "G-d damn America!" comment. Both are disloyal and seditious - at least in my view anyway.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But I wasn't objecting to John Avalos' admiration for Chavez - but rather to his calling the United States "imperialist."

That's no better than Jeremiah Wright's "G-d damn America!" comment. Both are disloyal and seditious - at least in my view anyway.

Do a quick review of the Banana Wars, and see why someone from that part of the world may legitimately feel under the US heel.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Chavez did a lot to raise the people out of poverty. He was an example of a leader, that against all odds and much opposition, made huge strides in uplifting the people of his country. We should be so lucky.

Poverty remains the Third Rail of American politics. Discuss poverty and you discuss the greatest shame in life. After all the enrichment and indulgence of elites is the highest allowable purpose of life. Economic elites who believe that no human suffering is excessive so long as it turns a profit control a large part of the political debate. They blame the victim -- "you don't work hard enough", "you don't make enough sacrifices or those of adequate extent", and "you don't believe enough!" They continually demand more and offer less because they exercise market power.

Hugo Chavez was a demagogue, but demagogues don't succeed except in the context of economic and moral failures of elites. Before Chavez, those elites who bled the oil revenue and failed to share it exemplified moral failure in politics and economics . He relied heavily on market-busting, treasury-draining subsidies which solve a basic problem at the cost of everything else. The free market is a good idea on the trivialities that form the bulk of the economy, and if people can't afford such basics as food and rent maybe they simply aren't getting paid enough.

Venezuela is a Catholic country, and Catholics do not deny the social harm of poverty or repudiate science. America has a large fundamentalist Protestant population much more likely to blame themselves for their own poverty and to believe the feudal ideology (and it is feudal) of the economic elites. They don't blame their bad schooling or religious attitudes that denigrate objective learning. They don't blame economic exploitation and limited opportunities for their poverty. They instead blame themselves -- or "liberals" or "minorities".

Originally Posted by Deb C

Possibly we will get closer to the truth of drone strikes in those areas. What we hear from our government and those who have been experiencing the terror of our drones, are apparently two different stories. May the truth prevail...

Here's another take on the entire drone issue: is it ethical and where do the responsibitities lie? The author of this article is also writing a book in the subject.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

A bipolar compromise between the two parties while desirable, is nothing but a pipe dream, especially with today's gop. Neither of the two existing parties are currently able to provide a positive agenda for the citizenry. Only Restorationism, with its appeal to communal spirituality,the idea a society of friends and countrymen working together, and finally the emphasis on equality of opportunity and a new elite whose's power is based on merit and participation in meritocratic achievements, is up to the task. The meritocratic elite will be a caste of men and women who would have proven their right to rule. Quality education would be made available for all, children would be taught not only traditional subjects such as reading, math, science, history, language, etc, but also practical technical skills as well as ready made emergency and survival skills. Coordination and strengthening of the education system would be placed under the direction of the military. Technical and vocational schools would be opened for all, largely to correct the problem of students completing their education but finding no jobs available that are designed for them. Education would be multifaceted and worldly, but also must be advanced with a keen eye toward teaching children to distinguished between those in the world who are good and generous on one hand and those who are evil and cruel on the other hand. Children would also be taught to distinguish betwen the redeemable and the irredeemable. Economically, outsourcing would be ended and corporations forced to hire american workers on pain of treason charges. Reindustrialization would commence and then be stepped up. The military would be expanded to a standing army of 10 million troops, with the navy, air force and marine corps having 2.5 million troops each. Another 20 million troops would be trained as a ready reserve. The nuclear arsenal would be boosted back to and over cold war levels of roughly 40000 warheads. Regarding foreign policy america should seek first a delienation of spheres of influence with russia, china and europe. America should also seek an anglophone union with britain, canada, australia, and new zealand and other nations. This would be followed by the conquest and vassalization of latin america followed by the "general pacification in the middle east". With regards to how the pacification of the middle east would be carried out, this would be carried out by the wholesale purging of the islamic cleric classes that are prevalent in the mideast, this would be like a doctor when he performs surgery using his scalpal. Although there are a minority of clerics who oppose islamist terrorism, the history of the past 35 years has shown that genuine long term peace in the mideast would be possible only if their is a surgical removal of the terrorist support bases, at least as it is currently constituted, the islamic cleric caste must be eliminated. The middle east would be reorganized into military administrative regions, and admininstrative centers and other settlement cities would be built and populated by american, canadian, latin american, israeli settlers and even some indian and african settlers. Although construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by arab muslim labor.

Even though I sport strong Libertarian tendencies, given just how bad things would be if Western Civilization were to be conquered, I say, we must choose our poison. And this poison would be a good poison whether our participative republican democracy survives, or, does not, and is replaced by a military dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is true if and only if the tide has not turned. I'm not sure it has either, but the melting of GOP support seems to indicate a change is underway at the very least. We're also war-weary.

We were war-weary after Vietnam. Had no effect, the empire remained.

I'm less sure that the GOP will walk away from the miltary.

I'm not sure at all. But what happens if they don't? How will they regain the upper hand on foreign policy? Suppose after Afghanistan is there is no new war started by the Democrats. If they don't have a war then they can't fuck it up.

As for Iran, response to any hawkish statement by the GOP by saying American doesn't need another Iraq. Anything the GOP say about it is simply equated with calling for invasion.

Their support lies to an unhealthy degree in parts of the country that rely on the miltary as the basis of the economy.

How do you square this with GOP enthusiasm for defense cuts?

The GOP has never done well in big-tent mode, so it will tear the party apart.

As I said the party will have to restructure. Right now we don't have to do anything about the deficit, Cheney's Law still applies. Hence the GOP can pretend to be working toward all three without sacrificing the miltary. In ten years this won't be the case. Some combination of the following MUST happen: taxes go, up a lot, old people get much smaller checks and do without health care next month, the Fed prints a lot of money, the miltary gets evisercerated. It's physics.

Of these four, which is least unacceptable to the GOP?

That's not the model this time ... its oil and banking. I don't see isolationism meeting the needs of those underwriters.

I don't see why they would need the American government to take any role at all.

The GOP seems to do best when they act in a muscular fashion. Neither Ron nor Rand Paul seems to fit that mold.

In a decade or a bit longer the US will be physically incapable of acting muscularly, if the country is going to be run according to deeply-held Republican principles. For the US to act muscularly the GOP will have to give up one of these principles. Which one are you suggesting they will give up?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Hugo Chavez was a demagogue, but demagogues don't succeed except in the context of economic and moral failures of elites. Before Chavez, those elites who bled the oil revenue and failed to share it exemplified moral failure in politics and economics . He relied heavily on market-busting, treasury-draining subsidies which solve a basic problem at the cost of everything else. The free market is a good idea on the trivialities that form the bulk of the economy, and if people can't afford such basics as food and rent maybe they simply aren't getting paid enough.

I don't see Chavez as having been a demagogue, as much a brave leader who saw the immense suffering of the people and stepped up to the plate. I'm sure that the people he helped to get out of the slums, saw him much differently than how he has been almost demonized in this country.

To be a great leader of the people, one must first acknowledge the needs, pain and suffering of the people. Unlike what Chavez did for the people living in poverty, our country leaders hide the poor. Like you indicated, they make them out to be responsible for their dire situations. What a real leader does is work for the common good, not the corporate masters. Chavez did the opposite of what our government leaders do, he attempted to change the under lying system that disenfranchised the people . This is why he is portrayed by our country as something less than what he was.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I don't see Chavez as having been a demagogue, as much a brave leader who saw the immense suffering of the people and stepped up to the plate. I'm sure that the people he helped to get out of the slums, saw him much differently than how he has been almost demonized in this country.

He may have been both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

With the military there is the option of retrenchment-saving money by closing many of our overseas bases. As for foreign policy, we could use...oddly enough...a Richard Nixon. One thing you can say for Nixon, he had a knack for international politics. His hard line anti-communist reputation allowed his overture to China. Yeah, we could use a politician who would make deals with countries such as Iran and Cuba.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

He may have been both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. This.