Russia and/or China need to supply Afghanistan with sophisticated air defenses. Or, I remember a few years back Iran brought down a US drone with electronics. Either way is fine with me. I don't want any more Afghans slaughtered.
Our military doesn't represent us; our politicians don't represent us; and our media don't represent us. Not to get all Fundamentalist, but our Declaration of Independence is pretty clear about what to do when this sort of situation arises.
There are those who argue that blaming the troops is wrong; it's just the rotten civilian leadership who is to blame. I disagree. Who do you suppose will be transporting, maintaining, and piloting those drones -- Kamala Harris?
Imagine the shock, horror and demands for massive retaliation if, say, Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia were to openly conduct military and intelligence operations in, say, Florida. Capitalist USA (and the term should be used as often as 'Communist China' used to be) imagines that only it has the right to do as it wishes anywhere on the planet.
I can be a bit of a smarty pants, a know it all, so it’s good when someone gives me a jolt - this one gave me a jolt. How very simple, the withdrawal is optics, the campaign continues, that escaped me (and I don’t mean the bungled departure).
Withdrawls aside, we all knew the CIA warriors and private contractor goons were exempt. Like everything else that smacks of decency the democrats do, it's all performative.
Ya agree. Even from my anti-establishment cynical position I have to admit he was enjoyable mostly in a comedic, moronic, blasphemous, neanderthal sort of way.
Imran Kahn knows better, though the zionists will do everything and anything to corrupt and/or blackmail him into submission. plus, China and Russia must have a few tricks in their bag too against further troubles on their borders.
I, too, am disturbed at notions or actuality of 'empire' or even 'empire building', regardless of how it manifests.
I, too, am disturbed at the lives physically lost by both military personnel and civilians, as well as the dispossession, destruction of community, loss of freedoms, poverty, ill-health & other effects of war, armed conflict, militarism, hard-line ideology, fanatical religious belief and greed driven ideologies.
I don't have status, position or power, nor any incisive or extraordinary intellect. However, I do recognise, (or at least believe that I recognise), the considerable influence that social conditioning, religious indoctrination, cultural legacy, warped recounting of history and probably many more insidious factors are the major contributors to or even causes of non-natural disasters and major harmful events and situations in which human-beings find themselves throughout the World but particular in what has long been deprecatingly known as the 'third world', i.e. the majority world.
At the same time , (and please believe that I am not making some sly attempt at apologia for empire and its like, I am also aware that this type of activity has been present throughout human history. No, I do not say that we ought to accept it or that its continuous existence makes it right or even acceptable. What I think I am saying or perhaps suggesting is that it seems to be a characteristic of humanity.
My experience is that much simplistic comment and rabid accusations exists across social media platforms, on sensationalist news channels and elsewhere. Almost all of it seems to be severely biased against either the 'mighty power' or against the 'terrorist' and in neither case exhibits any nuanced or even informed understanding of cultural, religious, ideological, political, military or social context and history.
So, I wonder, when human innovation and invention in the technological domain has come so far, why is it that in the humane domain we have still not progressed beyond the level of childish schoolyard argument and bullying and stubborn insistence that right exists on whichever side we prefer?
If commentators are so opposed to oppression, whether manifested through open physical abuse or through largely hidden, insidiously infectious propaganda, why do they so rarely, if ever, offer any substantive, credible and potentially achievable solution to this entrenched failing of humanity? Why do they, in effect, simply indulge in rhetorical diatribes that are very much reflective of exactly what they purport to oppose?
No. Empire building is restricted only to a tiny subset of humanity, mostly male (although recent female emancipation has allowed many privileged females to display their delight in ruling and exploiting the poor). Most people have no wish to do so, as is obvious through history.
As for alternatives, have you not even considered internationalist socialism which has been around a lot longer than you have? I don't see Cuba, Venezuela, Kerala or Bolivia engaging in empire-building. Even China, for all its vast and egregious crimes against humanity, is not imperialist in anything remotely comparable to the USA.
You may be right that "Empire building is restricted only to tiny subset of humanity..." if you are referring to only the individuals who direct and control, however even that is debatable, depending on one's definition of 'empire building'. However, in terms of peoples, religious groups, ideological groups or what we now know as nation states, I suggest that history indicates that empire building has been widespread.
Thank you for your comments and suggested readings. I will read them. I also agree with the general thrust of your comment for I don't (and certainly didn't mean to suggest, if that seemed to be the case), that any particular ideology provides 'the answer', though I do believe that some are preferable to others if they were not, as you suggest in your last paragraph, distorted to such an extent by autocrats and oligarchs that the implementation bears little resemblance to the substantive elements that define the term.
I'd say that the purpose of propaganda is to create just the impression that you state; i.e. -- helplessness, no easy solutions, always been like this, you're alone, so deal with it, etc.
I agree, hence my closing question. I you and I can see this, I believe that many others also see it, including many of those 'commentators' to whom I referred. That being the case, it would seem to me that instead of simplistic slanging or demeaning of the perspectives and actions they oppose, it would be more useful if they offered or at least attempted to offer ideas as to how to change this continual human insanity.
However, I accept that in spite of my age, I remain somewhat of an idealist and wrestle constantly in attempting to understand why human-beings cut off their noses to spite their faces.
I believe along with Caitlin that if enough people wake the fuck up that some critical mass will ignite, blasting us into a saner tomorrow. At least that's my rough understanding of her messaging.
Jimmy Dore favors a general strike, as do I. Voting for sure is the shit. No one even covers protests, and our politicians are a waste. So I'd like to see a strike grind this nation to a halt. That's the best I can come up with at the present time.
I'm sorry if you have felt offended by my comment for that is what your response suggests to me. If I'm right about that, I do apologise for I was not criticising Caitlin's post or your own response.
I don't think that *all* of us do want a solution. Indeed, I think that such is a part of the problem, in that so many are conditioned or indoctrinated to the point that they can't see and others who do, benefit from the situation so don't mind it continuing - armaments manufacturers, for instance.
However, I also feel that simply throwing stones, from whatever stance and regardless of the target, is not particularly contributory towards a sound approach to change, let alone a 'solution'. In fact, in my view, it reflects precisely what is purported to be opposed.
I don't see that a general strike would achieve the type of change that is necessary. It would probably just cause much harm to exactly those who are already hurting the most. I do empathise with your feelings about voting but don't agree that voting, as such, is a significant culprit. Voting is simply a process for participation but if the process of which it is a part is flawed, (and I believe that it is, in many ways) then what we need to do is fix that to make voting an effective and truly representative tool.
*Some* politicians are a "waste", as you say, but not all. I also wondere with what you would replace them because it is known that human beings cannot live together in groups of more than about 30 without some form of group hierarchy or governance. I'd also suggest that materialism and other false values that appear to be endemic to most modern societies, and the resultant inequities and power of the inordinately wealthy, has resulted in a situation where politicians have largely become the pawns of those autocrats and oligarchs, perhaps a little less than the rest of us but pawns just the same.
Similarly, anyone who sits in an anchor chair at, say, CNN, has already sold themselves 100 times before. AOC is a perfect real-time example of personal corruption in the political realm.
I’ve really begun to enjoy fox. During trumps reign of terror they were jingoistic liars but now in opposition I do perform the function of truth tellers.
Remember folks even when F-35 Bernie was still sheep dogging about a “political revolution” he was still all for drone warfare…
Russia and/or China need to supply Afghanistan with sophisticated air defenses. Or, I remember a few years back Iran brought down a US drone with electronics. Either way is fine with me. I don't want any more Afghans slaughtered.
Let's send some to Gaza while we're at it.
Yes, but all in due time, my friend. Lebanon and NE Syria are priorities right now. Israel won't last much longer pushing Pfizer.
Our military doesn't represent us; our politicians don't represent us; and our media don't represent us. Not to get all Fundamentalist, but our Declaration of Independence is pretty clear about what to do when this sort of situation arises.
There are those who argue that blaming the troops is wrong; it's just the rotten civilian leadership who is to blame. I disagree. Who do you suppose will be transporting, maintaining, and piloting those drones -- Kamala Harris?
We need a national strike.
Imagine the shock, horror and demands for massive retaliation if, say, Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia were to openly conduct military and intelligence operations in, say, Florida. Capitalist USA (and the term should be used as often as 'Communist China' used to be) imagines that only it has the right to do as it wishes anywhere on the planet.
Still trying to figure out why we have a military base in Cuba.
Very good piece, simple clear concise.
I can be a bit of a smarty pants, a know it all, so it’s good when someone gives me a jolt - this one gave me a jolt. How very simple, the withdrawal is optics, the campaign continues, that escaped me (and I don’t mean the bungled departure).
Withdrawls aside, we all knew the CIA warriors and private contractor goons were exempt. Like everything else that smacks of decency the democrats do, it's all performative.
That’s why I say Trump is the most honest of the bunch, he was bald face in his rudeness and lies
I get that, but here's my big BUT: he took up the space that should have been for a REAL reformer and just gave fighting the deep state a bad name.
Ya agree. Even from my anti-establishment cynical position I have to admit he was enjoyable mostly in a comedic, moronic, blasphemous, neanderthal sort of way.
Imran Kahn knows better, though the zionists will do everything and anything to corrupt and/or blackmail him into submission. plus, China and Russia must have a few tricks in their bag too against further troubles on their borders.
I, too, am disturbed at notions or actuality of 'empire' or even 'empire building', regardless of how it manifests.
I, too, am disturbed at the lives physically lost by both military personnel and civilians, as well as the dispossession, destruction of community, loss of freedoms, poverty, ill-health & other effects of war, armed conflict, militarism, hard-line ideology, fanatical religious belief and greed driven ideologies.
I don't have status, position or power, nor any incisive or extraordinary intellect. However, I do recognise, (or at least believe that I recognise), the considerable influence that social conditioning, religious indoctrination, cultural legacy, warped recounting of history and probably many more insidious factors are the major contributors to or even causes of non-natural disasters and major harmful events and situations in which human-beings find themselves throughout the World but particular in what has long been deprecatingly known as the 'third world', i.e. the majority world.
At the same time , (and please believe that I am not making some sly attempt at apologia for empire and its like, I am also aware that this type of activity has been present throughout human history. No, I do not say that we ought to accept it or that its continuous existence makes it right or even acceptable. What I think I am saying or perhaps suggesting is that it seems to be a characteristic of humanity.
My experience is that much simplistic comment and rabid accusations exists across social media platforms, on sensationalist news channels and elsewhere. Almost all of it seems to be severely biased against either the 'mighty power' or against the 'terrorist' and in neither case exhibits any nuanced or even informed understanding of cultural, religious, ideological, political, military or social context and history.
So, I wonder, when human innovation and invention in the technological domain has come so far, why is it that in the humane domain we have still not progressed beyond the level of childish schoolyard argument and bullying and stubborn insistence that right exists on whichever side we prefer?
If commentators are so opposed to oppression, whether manifested through open physical abuse or through largely hidden, insidiously infectious propaganda, why do they so rarely, if ever, offer any substantive, credible and potentially achievable solution to this entrenched failing of humanity? Why do they, in effect, simply indulge in rhetorical diatribes that are very much reflective of exactly what they purport to oppose?
No. Empire building is restricted only to a tiny subset of humanity, mostly male (although recent female emancipation has allowed many privileged females to display their delight in ruling and exploiting the poor). Most people have no wish to do so, as is obvious through history.
As for alternatives, have you not even considered internationalist socialism which has been around a lot longer than you have? I don't see Cuba, Venezuela, Kerala or Bolivia engaging in empire-building. Even China, for all its vast and egregious crimes against humanity, is not imperialist in anything remotely comparable to the USA.
You may be right that "Empire building is restricted only to tiny subset of humanity..." if you are referring to only the individuals who direct and control, however even that is debatable, depending on one's definition of 'empire building'. However, in terms of peoples, religious groups, ideological groups or what we now know as nation states, I suggest that history indicates that empire building has been widespread.
Thank you for your comments and suggested readings. I will read them. I also agree with the general thrust of your comment for I don't (and certainly didn't mean to suggest, if that seemed to be the case), that any particular ideology provides 'the answer', though I do believe that some are preferable to others if they were not, as you suggest in your last paragraph, distorted to such an extent by autocrats and oligarchs that the implementation bears little resemblance to the substantive elements that define the term.
I'd say that the purpose of propaganda is to create just the impression that you state; i.e. -- helplessness, no easy solutions, always been like this, you're alone, so deal with it, etc.
I agree, hence my closing question. I you and I can see this, I believe that many others also see it, including many of those 'commentators' to whom I referred. That being the case, it would seem to me that instead of simplistic slanging or demeaning of the perspectives and actions they oppose, it would be more useful if they offered or at least attempted to offer ideas as to how to change this continual human insanity.
However, I accept that in spite of my age, I remain somewhat of an idealist and wrestle constantly in attempting to understand why human-beings cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Perhaps I am also ignorant or naive or both.
So you want solutions. Don't we all?
I believe along with Caitlin that if enough people wake the fuck up that some critical mass will ignite, blasting us into a saner tomorrow. At least that's my rough understanding of her messaging.
Jimmy Dore favors a general strike, as do I. Voting for sure is the shit. No one even covers protests, and our politicians are a waste. So I'd like to see a strike grind this nation to a halt. That's the best I can come up with at the present time.
I'm sorry if you have felt offended by my comment for that is what your response suggests to me. If I'm right about that, I do apologise for I was not criticising Caitlin's post or your own response.
I don't think that *all* of us do want a solution. Indeed, I think that such is a part of the problem, in that so many are conditioned or indoctrinated to the point that they can't see and others who do, benefit from the situation so don't mind it continuing - armaments manufacturers, for instance.
However, I also feel that simply throwing stones, from whatever stance and regardless of the target, is not particularly contributory towards a sound approach to change, let alone a 'solution'. In fact, in my view, it reflects precisely what is purported to be opposed.
I don't see that a general strike would achieve the type of change that is necessary. It would probably just cause much harm to exactly those who are already hurting the most. I do empathise with your feelings about voting but don't agree that voting, as such, is a significant culprit. Voting is simply a process for participation but if the process of which it is a part is flawed, (and I believe that it is, in many ways) then what we need to do is fix that to make voting an effective and truly representative tool.
*Some* politicians are a "waste", as you say, but not all. I also wondere with what you would replace them because it is known that human beings cannot live together in groups of more than about 30 without some form of group hierarchy or governance. I'd also suggest that materialism and other false values that appear to be endemic to most modern societies, and the resultant inequities and power of the inordinately wealthy, has resulted in a situation where politicians have largely become the pawns of those autocrats and oligarchs, perhaps a little less than the rest of us but pawns just the same.
I suspect that in Sinema's case, she needed little incentive.
Similarly, anyone who sits in an anchor chair at, say, CNN, has already sold themselves 100 times before. AOC is a perfect real-time example of personal corruption in the political realm.
I’ve really begun to enjoy fox. During trumps reign of terror they were jingoistic liars but now in opposition I do perform the function of truth tellers.