Clarkies note: US policy has always been PNAC-like. Only more so now.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

This country became NaziAmerika in 1945 when it literally took in many Nazis to form an anti-Soviet intelligence agency and develop Cold War policies and tactics.

http://www.bartcop.com/091702dewar.htm
(The Origins of Fascism in the United States by Christian Dewar)

http://www.sfbg.com/reality/20.html
(The CIA's Neo-Nazis)

This country has been an oligarchy from it's founding built on the power of terror and death, genocide and slavery. Rich white men taking what they want with weapons. It's that simple.

Only the Bill of Rights can make this country any different than the next amoral kingdom and it is used only on sentimental civic occasions.

Not understanding this leads many to believe that the current petro-nazi cabal is some aberration. That things were ok under Democratic presidents or atleast the crimes against humanity were moderated. Sadly, this is not the case.

Just as John Kerry, representing Vietnam Vets Against the War, testified regarding the Mai Lai massacre that it was indeed the norm and not an isolated or infrequent outbreak of slaughter.

I admit to reading tons of history and lots and lots of
Noam Chomsky www.understandingpower.com
and
Michel Collon http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosmcmb.htm

This is why a US general is not going to have a record of deeds or associations reflecting the values that people on this website cherish. He cannot, by definition, rescue us from the system he's been working in successfully all his life-the fascist US domination of people's all over the planet. I wish it were otherwise. Believe me.

[JohnyCanuck]

1. The fix is in.

From the pen of Mike Ruppert at www.fromthewilderness.com

And this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article, the decision has already been made by corporate and financial powers to remove George W. Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself three questions: "If there is someone or something that can decide that Bush will not return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him there in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's really responsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors". Who are they? Are they going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them?

What can change this Board of Directors and the way the "Corporation" protects its interests? These are the only issues that matter.

So now the honest question about the 2004 Presidential campaign is, "What do you really want out of it?" Do you want the illusion that everything is a little better while it really gets worse? Or are you ready yet to roll up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant but necessary fixes?

<snip>

Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again?

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html

[diplomats]

4. I'm sorry but I think all of our candidates are way better than Bush

even Lieberman, who's my least favorite. I don't have a problem with finding someone "electable" because I'll do whatever it takes to get that horrible man out of office. That's my goal - period!

[diplomats]

2. He's not a general anymore

he's a private citizen, so he's free to favor whatever policies and issues he wants, just like all of our candidates.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

3. And so is Pinochet. Point being that he has a whole life in the other camp

[diplomats]

5. You're comparing Clark to a South American dictator?

Sorry, I don't find your argument the least bit persuasive.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. But all the "electable" Democrats are like that

so what do you propose? You don't like Clark since he's part of the system, so you want another politician or busienssman instead? The only difference between Clark and the other candidates is that Clark actually did some dirty work himself, while the other candidates cheered from the sidelines.

Electing a Democrat isn't going to change imperialism, let's be honest, the Democratic party *is* the imperialist party, the Republicans have just screwed it up.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. 'electable'

You even put it in quotes.. so you obviously don't believe the myth.

If you vote, they will come....or something like that.
Why do we settle for these 'electable' candidates when there are much better 'unelectable' choices.


TWL

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Corporate media defines "electable"

Kucinich cannot get elected, because he will be ignored by the corporate media, and the vast majority of people get their info from the corporate media. If Dennis ran a stupendously successful grassroots campaign that bypassed the corporate media, they would try to coopt him, or just shoot him. If he won they would just burn the ballots. Voting is a tiny part of the process, and the wealthy plutocrats that rule America aren't gong to allow a handful of loud mouth lefties to decide who gets to be president.

So I wouldn't say "eletcability" is a myth, but of course they lie about what it means. I'm going to vote for Kucinich so everyone knows we are a block and have some power.

[diplomats]

13. Because you can't actually DO anything if you don't win?

Others here may not share that point of view, but that's my bottom line.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. Really?

What can we do if we get another Clinton or a GENERAL in the office?

What do we win? The appearance of things being better with all the shit covered in sweet candy?

DMCA, Telecom act of 96, NAFTA, Counterterrorism act of 95

Don't get me wrong, compared to Dubya, Clinton or some of these corporate 'electable' candidates sure look good. But in the end it only pushes us all further rightward.

So in 4-8 years we get someone 3 times as worse as Bush because NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. The system is still the same and the same people are in control of it.


scuse me, I gotta go buy me more tinfoil, I plum run out.

TWL

[hippiechick]

22. if he's a private citizen why did he wear his medals et al

at the debate ?


:wtf:

[Zuni]

7. I challenge you on this

The CIA did work with ex-Nazis, former German military and other shady charecters. So did the Soviets. But Soviet archives have shown that the Soviet Union was behind the escalation of the cold war.

To think that being opposed to Stalinist expansionism is somehow Nazi is totally absurd. Stalin was a monster with few parallels in history. My grandparents lived in the Soviet Union and lived through the terror. Soviet communism, Stalinism and the Soviet Union were inhuman.

I have read Noam Chomsky before, and I have found his work often to be inaccurate (when he talks about incidents that I have studied. Most of the time he dwells on obscure incidents. But when he talks about subjects I know well, I see nothing but cleverly worded hatchet jobs) For example--The First post war Italian Elections---Chomsky said we supported 'fascists' in the election against a true populist movement. Total BS.
The 'populists' were a stalinist comintern controlled party funded mostly with donations from Moscow and chock full of Soviet Intelligence.
The CIA responded by donating around 1 million dollars to the Centrist Christian Democrats, whose leader was an anti-fascist librarian had to hide out during Mussolini's regime. Hardly the Nazis that Chomsky describes.
He often describes hardcore stalinists as populists. He cleverly words things or quotes an inaccurate source so he can say that he did not say something inaccurate if called on it. Nevertheless, his work is often simply propaganda.

There are many myths in the writing about America being the great empire of slavery and genocide. First--did you know only a small fraction of the slaves sent across the atlantic ever came to the US? Far more went to the carribean or to south America. Even more were taken by the Arabs, the most prolific slavers in history. Saudi Arabia had legal slavery until like 1962. There is still slavery in Africa in Sudan, mauritania, parts of Nigeria.
Did you know that 85-90% of the Indians died of smallpox or other epidemics? There were many massacres of Indians, but by far the worst were the ones committed by the Spaniards, in the 1500s.
In the 1800s, the worst massacre was at Sand creek by Colorado milita men (actually horse thieves, drunkards and general scum rounded up by a crackpot Colonel)--109 were killed, savagely, but it could hardly compare to the Nanking massacre (300,000 killed), Rwanda's massacre (close to 1 million killed) or Auschwitz's death camps (1 million at the one camp alone). The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in WWII, more than the estimated number of Indians living in North America at the height of Native American civilization, before the Conquistadores and Smallpox.


The IACenter is a joke. it is a Ramsey clark created organization, dedicated to defending Dictators in propaganda that ramsey defends in court. They are a sham, and utterly full of shit.

[Zuni]

8. no reply

I think he better read history other than Chomsky's diatribes and Ramsey Clark's inane propaganda.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

17. I read lots more than the Chomsky and Pollon (not Ramsey) I linked.

My parents are teachers. My mother is a college history prof. and I've been studying history, politics,journalism, religion, anthropology, psychology etc. most of my 42-year old life. It is my passion and I don't merely parrot what celeb nerds publish.

A favorite of mine is Buckminster Fuller who described interesting grand unified theories of power and economics and related them to pirate-like corporations dominating and supplanting the barbaric nation-state system.

But thanks for caring enough to share what you've also learned along with your cautionaries about leaning on single sources of information. I certainly agree with you on that.

(Um, while not perfect, Chomsky has a pretty good mind and more info in his noggin than some will ever read in their lifetime. Just my opinion...)

[Zuni]

18. interesting resume---I am impressed

I know a lot of people who read Chomsky, and do think he is quite clever, but often his versions of events I know about don't jibe with other things I have read.
Chomsky does have a huge, encyclopediac mind. I think his political views slant how he interprets and presents it.
He is a fantastic linguist though, and definetly among the best in that field.

I am glad you take an interest in history. It is my passion. I have found that no single source tells the whole story and most histories have some degree of bias.

I have a good friend who is in school studying anthropology, btw. it is a very interesting subject.

I am a big fan of pyschology too. In fact, when I first entered college, that was my chosen major. I read alot, especially about schizophrenia and drug induced psychosis (I used to have a drug problem).I think understanding human psychology and basic theories helps one understand history.

If I seemed rude in my post, I apologize. I tend to be somewhat abrasive when debating.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

19. Hey-I ain't thin skinned. I dig passion mixed with knowledge.

And I'll check out more criticism of Chomsky for sure. The more I learn about economics, the more I see the moral implications in what used to seem a dry and shallow topic. Now I see that money/oil is the driving force for the global power game and Chomsky's book 'Understanding Power' resonated strongly with me as you can tell.

Like you, I think psychology and understanding the brain and language are key to understanding larger social systems.

microcosm=macrocosm.

This is another area that I believe gives Chomsky political insight as a linguist. The science of symbolism+emotion=propaganda=power politics.

One event he describes in his childhood burned in his brain:
In the 1930's, he was with his mother and saw a large group of woman factory workers on strike on the street. He watched police wade into this crowd and beat them bloody. Quite a beginning to understanding power, wouldn't you say? Makes you see where he started getting his perspective.
peace.

[GainesT1958]

9. I happen to think that my country--and YOURS--is better than that...

And, despite many things wrong with it, starting with the allowance of slavery and continuing from there, it's not NEARLY as evil as you describe it. If indeed, it was, why have so many sought to come to America, seeing it a shining beacon of freedom?

And no, the corporate "shills" do NOT have the decision-making monopoly--unless we allow them to sieze it! And the way to stop it in 2000 would've been for more people to vote--and to vote for Al Gore, who, in turn, would NOT have allowed this crap--yes, largely advocated by those greedy corporate entities--to happen. I'm convinced Al would have challenged them to the core! :mad:

And no, Gen. Clark is NOT their new shill, nor their new puppet. Were he, he'd be advocating the same things Dub & Co. want, only in a smoother-talking package. But he isn't. Far from it. He's not saying just what some "controlling interest" TOLD him to say; he's saying what he obviously believes. A disollusioned convert can be your most effective advocate, given the chance. That's why I'm glad he, and all of our candidates, are out there standing up for what's right about the country I love.

:kick:

B-)

[Zuni]

11. I agree

Al Gore has some big buisness ties, but nothing like Oily Dick Cheney.
Anyone who has such a negative view of our history (but seems to forget that far worse things have happened in other places) needs to get off the Chomsky and go to the library.

[Junkdrawer]

14. I've said here many times: 1945 thru 1949 were the "magic" years...

We had the Bomb.

The Bomb scared the shit out of almost everyone.

Two schools of thought formed that duke it out to this day:

The Multilateralists (then known as World Government advocates) thought that a World Government should be formed and that the Bomb should be turned over to this government. In concrete terms, this took the form of the UN and the idea was to slowly give the UN a larger and larger voice in international affairs.

The Unilateralists (now referred here as PNACers) thought that we should keep the Bomb and use it to make sure no other country ever gets it - even if it meant war.

The 1949 USSR test of their first A Bomb scared the living hell out of everyone in this country and pretty much ended all "World Government" talk.

[RichM]

15. You're exactly right.

Except for possibly the phrase about "the values that people on this website cherish." The Clarkies & the ABB people here are taking the position that NOTHING matters except removing Bush from office -- even if he's replaced by someone who's simply a more intelligent & polished version of Bush; someone who defends the same basic interests that Bush defends, but does so in a way arousing less fear & hostility.

These people, by focusing so singlemindedly on the worthy goal of removing Bush, are ignoring the larger picture. The problem is not Bush himself, it's the forces in society that made the selection of Bush possible. These forces will remain in place even if Bush, the individual, is removed -- unless the replacement is a party absolutely determined to challenge & change those fundamental forces.

To a large extent, the problem lies in the whole structure of our society, & in our culture, & economic system. We feed off the rest of the world. We sell arms to everyone, waste colossal amounts of resources, exploit the 3rd World, & build an insanely excessive military to be able to keep pounding the rest of the world into submission. And we don't admit that this is what we do -- we tell ourselves pretty lies, and anyone who tries to tell the truth is denounced as "anti-American."

While it is not 100% IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a military background to develop an appreciation for the truth of what Chomsky (among others) says, it is certainly HIGHLY LIKELY that a career military person will have conventional views, favorable to the MIC & the standard batch of lies on which US society is built. And Clark gives every indication of being in this predictable mold.

Thus, electing him will change nothing fundamental. It will merely reduce the level of overt tension temporarily. It will be like taking some aspirin to treat malignant cancer.

[Zuni]

16. the 'truth' of chomsky

the only truth of chomsky is that he is good at distorting reality.

[RichM]

20. HA! I know it's futile, but can you support that with a few specifics?

Please share with us a few concrete instances of Chomsky "distorting reality." Pretty please.

[bloom]

23. well said

Some here are more trusting than I am.

I haven't read Chomsky - but I would guess that he is able to gain a following based on some basic ways of distilling history.

"This country has been an oligarchy from it's founding built on the power of terror and death, genocide and slavery. Rich white men taking what they want with weapons. It's that simple."

I don't think that this - from the original poster - can really be argued with. Some other countries still have slavery - so what? That makes our history OK? :wtf:

[WilliamPitt]

25. Excuse me

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of people on this forum alone with a military background who have a full and complete ability to
"appreciate the truth." Your post is obnoxious.

[RichM]

26. Excuse me yourself. You'll note that I said "CAREER military person" --

& that I specified the class of "truths" I was speaking of (I referred to the basic truths of Chomsky's viewpoint, not to absolute eternal "truth").

What is "obnoxious" here is your inaccurate representation of my viewpoint. You're pretending that I slighted the honor of people in this forum, but I was obviously speaking of generals with grand careers & Pentagon connections. I don't think we have many of them in this forum -- and if we did, my guess is they'd have conventional views about patriotism, US society, the MIC, & would not be appreciative of Chomsky's viewpoint (which is all I claimed).

What's bothering you is not really that I besmirched the honor of ex-military in this forum. What's bothering you is that I have correctly called you on the disappointing sell-out quality of your "ABB" campaign, & your eagerness to jump on the Clark bandwagon, even before the many legitimate questions about him are satisfactorily resolved.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Well congratulations

for saying it is not "100% impossible" for military people to know the truth. Way to be, hero.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

28. Hello, Will. Any opinion on my post's main contention?

I feel a little guilty bringing this tone of fatalism to the board but, in the spirit of facing harsh truths to better deal with them, I couldn't restrain myself after more info on Wesley Clark came to light. I admire your writing and share many of your views. How to avoid just changing the uniform instead of actually improving the prospect for a better world?

[WilliamPitt]

31. I think you are right

Other posters hare have brought up some questions on Chomsky's objectivity on the matter, but all in all I think you've made an excellent point.

[RichM]

29. It would be more honest of you to simply acknowledge the distinctions

I just explained. Then you could criticize what I actually AM saying, rather than something you're pretending I'm saying.

Let me try once more:

"military people" is not = "CAREER military; generals with Pentagon connections"

"the truth" is not = "the underlying thrust of Chomsky's social criticism"

Have you got it now?

===============
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Here's your paraphrase:

It is not "100% impossible" for military people to know the truth

(Note how it's an utterly dishonest rendering of my position.)
Here is my paraphrase:

It is not "100% impossible" for CAREER military with Pentagon connections to appreciate the truth of Chomsky's social criticism, & the role the MIC plays in it. However, it's highly unlikely.

Go ahead and take a swing at that, if you like.

[RichM]

30. Come on, Pitt. You're not really going to just ignore this, are you?

[WilliamPitt]

32. Your exact words

"While it is not 100% IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a military background to develop an appreciation for the truth of what Chomsky (among others) says, it is certainly HIGHLY LIKELY that a career military person will have conventional views, favorable to the MIC & the standard batch of lies on which US society is built."

I find your characterization that a military person (not career military, but straight military, as stated in your first sentence) somehow is way way way less likely to be able to percieve the truth of the matter to be pretty crass. I can't speak for a career military person, but I'd be willing to bet that after spending a career getting jacked around by asshole civilian leaders like Rumsfeld, and getting puppet-stringed by defense contractors, that a career military person would have a grip on the trith that is far beyond your capabiliates.

[RichM]

33. What is at issue is whether or not Pentagon brass are likely to

appreciate the basics of Chomksy-esque criticism of US society, & the role the MIC plays in this critique.

We are NOT discussing your estimate of MY personal intellectual capabilities -- certainly a topic of little interest.

Try to speak to the subject, & keep it away from the personal.

Thank you so much.

==============================

PS - you misrepresent yet AGAIN! You quote my sentence, in which the word "CAREER" appears. Yet your comment wrongly insists that I was speaking of "straight military." This matters. People who rise to the level of general & Pentagon brass are far more likely to buy into conventional notions of US militarism, nationalism, chauvinism, patriotism etc than those who serve for limited time periods down in the ranks of ordinary soldiers. MOST people who get to the top in the military have a certain characteristic mindset. The whole environment strongly encourages & practically demands intense loyalty & conformism.

My position is simply that you won't find many people who appreciate Noam Chomsky in the Pentagon. That's almost like saying you won't find many admirers of Karl Marx in the Pentagon. Doesn't seem too controversial a statement to me -- but you're the one who's arguing with it!

[robbedvoter]

21. It'll be less under Clark who is passionate for multilateralism

He wants to involve all the countries in the region in helping Iraq, ME peace. On PNAC he says that:
So does Clark expose PNAC:
 " I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of
the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were
still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This
was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and
there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what
they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of
the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it
would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after
individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0