Remember Iraq?
Iraq is still there,
and
thousands of troops are still there, too. Millions of dollars go
there every week, too. You would, of course, never know this
following the presidential campaign. Afghanistan is also still
there.
The groups that
started
out being anti-war groups, like Moveon.org and others, are also doing
their best to keep the Occupations out of view, in order to get Obama
elected. That’s because they’ve ceased being anti-war
organisations and joined the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, suffering
continues in Iraq, under American and British occupation. As well,
troops languish there, many with their time there extended. Troops
that come back without limbs, with serious psychological problems,
with other injuries. Troops who will stay there, no matter who wins
the election. Yes, Obama says he’ll start bringing some troops out
of Iraq, but he’ll leave many there. It will likely be that
he’ll
take out troops until the occupation is in danger, whereupon he’ll
put them back. Remember, he does notwant to end the occupation. Besides, how many of those
leaving Iraq
will go to Afghanistan to fight in the “War on Terror”? A
British commander has said that the Afghan war cannot be won, but
that kind of information has rarely stopped American military
adventures.
The
fact that Obama is a Democrat and will continue this nonsense should
be no surprise. FDR was the architect of the Endless War. After he
got his declarations of war against Germany and Japan, not another
was ever asked of Congress, who has never minded that its
constitutional responsibility has been usurped. Truman and every
president after didn’t bother with declarations. Roosevelt saw the
war as a way out of economic troubles, especially if the wars were a
long way away. All one needed was a “menace” and you were away.
You always had a focus for fear. (All this not withstanding any
“good” there might have been in fighting WWII.) Thousands of
Americans have died in wars since World War II, billions have gone
into wars, and people in many countries have known suffering and
death as a result of these conflicts, which, taken together, are an
Endless War.
The
point is that the various occupations that the US is engaged in are
not going to end with an Obama presidency. And remember, Obama’s
not ruled out conflict with Iran. My guess is that when times get
really tough, rather than tackling them, he’ll resort to declaring
a new enemy on which to focus our fears and anxieties. Whatever
“change” Obama is talking about, it isn’t a change in the
conventional wisdom (a “wisdom” which is more conventional than
wise). We are still to be engaged in endless wars, or an Endless War
with endless bad guys. As well, wars and corporate bail outs will
continue to be financed with large appropriations, without reference
to how they’ll be paid for. When questions about health care,
infrastructural renovation, relief for hurricane victims in New
Orleans, etc. come up, rest assured the question, “How will we pay
for this?” will come up. We could pay for it all if the Iraq and
Afghanistan adventures were ended and the money redirected. It
won’t
be. That’s not in the nature of Obama’s “Change”.
As
well, how “progressive” are all those self-styled
“progressives”
who’ve been busting their butts for a Democratic candidate. Is it
the respectability that comes with being supporters one of the two
“legitimate” parties? Maybe it’s in the word,
“progressive”.
Maybe that word sounds better in the professional world many of
these people inhabit than “radical”. Maybe it’s more “grown
up” to be a Democrat than a Green or a Socialist, or Social
Democrat. More likely, it’s self-delusion. I’m reminded once
again of the Obama tee shirt with the “O” in the form of a peace
symbol.
If it is self-delusion, it will come home to people when Obama is seen, by this time next year, to be more of the same. Same wars, same system of non-health care, more corporate bail-outs.
No Change in Sight
The Democratic and
Republican candidates for President of the United States are an
interesting pair. At the end of the day, neither represents any
substantial change in policy or direction for the country. It is
true that Senator Obama represents a change in style, from blatently
crooked and stupid to something more subtle. Senator McCain would
cruel and sadistic to the crooked and stupid.
Let’s look at
policies,
specifically around health care and the wars/occupations, etc. as
illustrative of the kinds of approaches these clowns would take.
First health care.
Senator McCain’s approach is simply cruel and sadistic. Tax the
currently tax-free health insurance contributions made by employers,
then give a tax credit – to be paid, not to the taxpayer, but to
the taxpayer’s insurance company. He must get some pleasure out of
seeing people suffer, proposing this sort of grand larceny.
Senator Obama, on the
other hand, is laughing behind our backs with his proposals. He says
that every American should have the same health care coverage as
members of Congress. What he doesn’t say, however, is that we
should pay out-of-pocket for ours, unlike members of Congress, who
get it for free. Moreover, the plan rests on including current plans
from insurance companies, making the big winners the insurance
companies. These are the big winners also in Senator McCain’s
plan. It is instructive to remember that, between them, these two
have received close to $50 million in contribution from the finance,
insurance, and real-estate sector over the past several years.
In both cases,
discussion
of taxes is made. Senator McCain would tax insurance contributions;
Senator Obama talks, in ads of how a single-payer system would cause
tax increases.
Tax increases, or
special
taxes never come up in either candidate’s message on wars and
occupations, or would-be military adventures. I wonder if either
would suggest a tax to cover expenses of wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan,
or Iran. Taken one at a time, let’s look at the approaches
suggested by the candidates to current or possible military actions.
In keeping with the
theme
of cruelty shown in his health-care, Senator McCain wants to stay the
course in Iraq, get down in Afghanistan, and “Bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran”. I guess he likes the idea of killing thousands
of innocent people and destroying whole countries while killing US
troops or bringing them home without limbs to languish in underfunded
veterans’ facilities. Anything to keep the Endless War going. (An
explanation for this level of sadism is welcome, by the way).
Senator Obama is also
a
proponent of the Endless War, tee shirts with the “O” in Obama
replaced by a peace sign not withstanding. Obama is for a partial
withdrawal from Iraq. I’m not sure why he doesn’t support a
complete withdrawal. At any rate, whilst pulling troops out of Iraq,
he wants to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. I wonder if either
Obama or McCain has read that a senior British commander has said
that the Afghan war cannot be won, and that the Taliban must be
included in a solution. As well, Obama has not ruled out bombing or
invading Iran. So, Obama, like Kerry and all those Democrats who won
seats in the 2006 Congressional elections, is not a peace candidate.
He’s a military-business-as-usual candidate.
On the environment and
the need for a green economy, McCain is worse than a dinosaur, and
not worth mentioning further. Obama’s so sold out now that he’s
not much better. He is okay with off-shore drilling and “clean
coal”, and is still at improving mileage on existing cars.
Knowing where their
money
comes from, it should have come as no surprise that the two of them
were out there selling the “No Tycoon Left Behind” bill.
Now, the big question
is
why so many people and organisations characterising themselves as
“progressive” are so gaga for Obama, given that he’s not very
progressive on these issues. I am supporting the Green Party,
whichis progressive on these
issues, and others. I think it is a colosal exercise in
self-deception for progressives to see the Democratic Party, or
it’s
nominee as progressive. Many of the organisations so behind Obama
started off as anti-war organisations. Now, they have collaborated
with the media in ignoring the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, which,
along with the Bailout for Bankers is bankrupting the country.
Remember: no new taxes or special funding plans are in place for
these adventures, not War Bonds (hard, when the war is illegal) or
special Save the Banks bonds.
Until
the two party duopoly is broken in this country, change by means of
the ballot is going to be impossible. In more and more states, the
Democrats and Republicans have conspired to keep other parties off
the ballot. The media will not cover other parties except as a joke.
The debates are a joke, being run by the Democrats and Republicans,
through their hand-picked commission. As I said, I’m voting Green.
I hope you will, too, but if you don’t, I hope you’ll vote your
dreams, and not your fears. Don’t be frightened out of expressing
your beliefs by the Democratic or Republican Fear Machines. Obama or
McCain will win this time, it’s true. Also, don’t buy the
bullshit that by supporting the Greens or Libertarians, or any other
party that somehow you’ll “cut into” the Obama or McCain vote.
Those votes don’t belong to them: they belong to
you,
until you cast them. But, the
country will win if you vote your dreams and your beliefs. In that
way, we can move the debate out of the exclusive hands of the
duopoly, who don’t want change. Demand ballot access, open
debates, and media coverage. Demand an end to the quadrennial
circus which has come to replace electoral democracy in the United
States.
Meanwhile, democracy is more than elections. Press elected officials; demonstrate; protest injustice; build community; be imaginative by yourselves or with your friends and neighbours. Build a new society in spite of the politicians and their backers.
Consumption
From New Contributor Linda Kervin
I am frustrated by the
prevailing idea in the media and the public in general that we can
shop our way out of our energy and environmental problems.
Everywhere you turn, someone is telling you to buy new light bulbs,
new cars, new refrigerators, new windows. However, no one seems to
take into consideration the energy cost of raw materials, production
or shipping. There is also an environmental cost in adding to
landfills. What would really happen if everyone acquired all these
new things?
Over consumption is what has brought us to the brink of environmental ruin. We cannot consume ourselves back from the brink. I know that there are situations when it makes environmental and economic sense to replace items that are no longer functioning at an acceptable level. But the pressure to purchase for some righteous cause is just one more symptom of our society’s search for meaning and purpose in all the wrong places.
Obama the War Candidate
I recently saw an ad for a tee-shirt with the word "Obama" on it. The
O in Obama was a peace symbol. This is sad, because it means that
either the maker or the buyer of this garment somehow see Obama as a
man of peace. He is not. If it wasn't clear before his Iraq trip
that he is not the peace candidate, it ought to be clear now.
Yes, Obama wants to reduce troop commitments to Iraq. He doesn't
want to get them all out of the country: that is, practically
speaking, he still favours occupation of Iraq. He want to reduce
troop levels in Iraq so that he can increase troop levels in
Afghanistan. It's not enough for Obama for the US to be deep in
the quagmire of Iraq. He wants to get into a place that's been
bad news for invaders (and yes, the "Coalition" or NATO are invaders)
for centuries.
The Afghan War and Occupation is no more righteous a conflict
than the Iraq Occupation. Indeed, the heavy hand of the US
military has been involved in several atrocities, the latest of which
is the bombing of a wedding party (or shall I say, another wedding
party). This sort of thing is the makes Uncle Sam the best
recruiting sergeant any anti-American organisation could ever
want. Boondoggles like the Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations are
often touted as "hearts and minds" efforts, trying to win people to
our way of thinking (though how invading a country and putting in a
puppet government does this is a source of wonder) though they are
straight occupations by people who think that they are superior to the
people in the occupied country and can kill those "lesser people" at
will. The fact is, if the idea is to win against the Taliban or
whoever by winning "hearts and minds" or militarily by killing them
off, bombing weddings and other ruthless military exercises only
ensure that there will be dozens of people to take each Taliban
casualty's place.
If Obama had any courage, or if he really were "for a change,"
he'd end both of these fiascoes, and would state categorically that he
has no plans, desires, or other sort of inclination to attack Iran.
So, in terms of foreign policy, Obama is one more business as
usual candidate, willing to let imperial ambitions be the destruction
of his country.
Iran
Now, it's the Democrats, not wanting to look intelligent but tough,
who are leading the charge on Iran. They are calling for a
blockade and search of all shipping into and out of Iran. Iran
is being portrayed as a belligerent nation. Really, who's
belligerent? Anyone who would block shipping is belligerent;
blocking shipping is an act of war.
The Democrats are not a party of peace. Obama is not for
withdrawing all troops from the country the USA illegally
invaded. He is also bellicose on the subject of Iran.
A war with Iran will please oil companies, and Israel, and kill
a lot of people. It will also set the US back even further as
far as our reputation in the world. Most of the world sees the
US as hypocritical on the subject of nuclear non-proliferation,
especially people in the Middle East, where we worry about Iran, which
has no nuclear weapons, whilst turning a blind eye to the Israeli
arsenal.
Don't vote for Democrats or Republicans, so long as they have no
new ideas, and only stupid ones.