Talk with our enemies?

[mac2]

http://www.democrats.com/blog/14542

Seems in that big Frat Club on the hill everyone is our enemy. They are "terrorists" everywhere. Ya..that's leadership and good foreign policy.

[Peace Patriot]

1. The Bush Junta is setting up an oil war in South America, which they tried to trigger

this March, with a U.S./Colombia bombing of Ecuador. They failed to get that one going (U.S. surrogate Colombia vs Ecuador/Venezuela--the latter two with the biggest pots of oil in the western hemisphere, both members of OPEC, both with pro-democracy, pro-social justice, leftist governments), but the Bushites have continued the provocations--re-institution of the 4th Fleet (nuclear) off the coast of Venezuela, U.S. flyovers of Venezuelan territory, Colombian soldiers stepping over Venezuelan and Ecuadoran borders, U.S. DEA or Blackwater incursions, and a campaign of lies, slander and wild accusations against the democratically elected, leftist governments of these countries. The Bushites have also supported, funded, organized and more than likely armed fascist secessionist groups who are trying to split off the oil-rich or gas-rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, from their leftist national governments. In the case of Bolivia, they are supporting WHITE SEPARATISTS (vicious racists). They are actively trying to start civil wars in these countries. And the plan is to respond to "requests" for U.S. military aid in support of the "independence" of these oil/gas-rich states that secede from national governments that represent the majority (the poor--and in the case of Bolivia, the indigenous). See this Rumsfeld op-ed.* That's what he says. He urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. The Bush Junta doesn't have any "friends and allies" in South America, except for the fascist thugs running Colombia, and the fascist cells planning coups in leftist countries. And whatever does he mean by "swift action"?

And we thought Donald Rumsfeld had "retired." Not so. In my opinion, he is orchestrating Oil War II: South America.

Where do the Democrats stand on this issue? Well, they've ALL bought into the war rhetoric against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (--that he is a "dictator," etc.--utter and complete bullshit; Venezuela has lots of oil, and its DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government is using the country's oil riches to benefit the poor--that is Chavez's crime). And they are apparently buying into the Bushite psyops against the Rafael Correa government in Ecuador as well (same crime). Hillary Clinton hired Mark Penn as her chief campaign adviser. Penn is the paid agent of the Colombian government (the fascist dinosaur of South America, fat with $5.5 BILLION in Bush/U.S. military aid, a country where they chainsaw union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves). Penn's P.R. firm was also involved in nefarious schemes to topple the Chavez government in Venezuela. We know where the Clinton's stand. As with Iraq, which they softened up for a Bush invasion, they massively armed Colombia (using the "war on drugs" excuse) and decimated South American economies with U.S. (global corporate predator) "free trade," and ruinous World Bank/IMF loans, in preparation for Oil War II. All this has failed to ripen on schedule, due to the amazing success of...ahem... democracy in South America

What about Obama? Here's what Lindorff is talking about. Obama pledged to "talk to our enemies"--something both Clinton and McBush oppose. Demonizing "our enemies" has been the preliminary to killing millions of innocents and stealing their oil, for both Bushites and War Democrats. Hard to talk to "demons." You raise a crucifix and wield garlic, and kill demons. So at least Obama recognizes that the leaders of the countries with the oil--that is, the ones that are small enough/weak enough for us to try to bully (you don't hear them demonizing oil-rich Russia) are not demons. And he is also careful about the word "enemies." However, in his speech to the Miami anti-Castro mafia a week or so ago, he did sound like James Monroe. Although he didn't use the phrase "Manifest Destiny" (U.S. "destiny" to dominate and exploit Latin America), he did assert that Latin America "needs" U.S. "leadership." His speech was both arrogant and delusional--arrogant in presuming that Latin America "needs" U.S. "leadership," and delusional in presuming that they would accept it.

Latin America is on its own path these days, spurred by DEMOCRACY and the election of REAL leaders, who are attending to the interests of their countries, their peoples and their region. They are well on their way to forming a South American "Common Market" (as well as a common defense), not including the U.S. And U.S. global corporate predators want back in, is my read on things. And the best way to do that is to be nice for a while--flood the place with consulates, and Peace Corps volunteers (/spies), and more "war on drugs" militarization, and real aid, and alternative energy projects, etc. (the 'gift' items in Obama's speech). It's better than "shock and awe" bombings. That's the best that can be said about it. For U.S. global corporate predators do NOT want to compete equally. They do NOT want fair trade. They have no respect for anybody--least of all for the vast poor majority of South America. And they WILL use this "Pax Obama," if that's what it is, to try to re-conquer the southern hemisphere.

Can "Pax Obama" be believed--does he really mean peace--or is it, in truth, all of a piece with Bushite/War Democrat war plans in South America? I'm not sure. Obama's Miami speech was full of their talking points (for instance, that Chavez is "authoritarian"--he didn't say "dictator" or "enemy," but it still shaves close to that lie; that Chavez and others (read Ecuador--lots of oil) may be supporting "terrorists" (another 'Big Lie'); and he touted Miami's anti-Castroites, the remnants of the most heinous South American dictatorship in a heinous century of them, as freedom lovers. Christ, what a fawning lie that is!). As I said, I'm not sure. One key will be how Obama responds to fascist separatist schemes.

I think the one in Bolivia is likely to be the booby trap the Bushites spring on Obama during the campaign. It is well under way, with full U.S./Bush backing. All South American countries (except Colombia--which is colluding with the Bolivian white racists) oppose the split-up of Bolivia, and Argentina and Brazil have pledged not to trade with any separatist state. (Argentina and Brazil are the chief customers for land-locked Bolivia's gas; the gas is mostly in the eastern provinces, where the fascist separatists are trying to secede). What will Obama do if the Bush/U.S. military is used to support this separatist state, during the campaign here? Can he speak out against the "independence" of these separatists? Maybe, in the case of Bolivia (because it is so clearly a white supremacist--i.e., apartheid--movement); but what if it's the separatists in Zulia, in Venezuela (where most of Venezuela's oil is, and which is adjacent to our putrid "ally," Colombia), or Ecuador (similar situation)? Will he support the "independence" of Zulia against demonized, "authoritarian" Hugo Chavez?

And, if I'm right that Obama is the Corporate Ruler's choice for president--to implement their new 'niceness' strategy--and they are therefore going to permit him to win the election in November--what will he do if the separatist schemes proceed without the U.S. military--Rumsfeld use of Colombian military and paramilitaries, Blackwater (active in Colombia), local militias, and vast sums of money stolen from us in Iraq, to instigate civil wars in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia?

If his Miami speech is any guide, he will let that privatized war proceed. He will take the "high road" and "talk to our enemies," and will let the corporations do the dirty work. It's possible that Obama has more peaceful intentions, and that his Miami speech was couched in "Manifest Destiny" terms because the audience for it is such a gang of dangerous troublemakers, drug lords, coup plotters and assassins, to whom he was delivering the message that he intends to "talk to" Cuba. I'll give him that--that he was walking into a minefield. But I am very worried that the upshot of all of this is going to be more U.S. sons and daughters maimed and killed, this time in the Andes, shooting at little brown people who have a passion for democracy, or, at the very least, permanent alienation between the northern and southern parts of the western hemisphere. The South Americans are not going to take U.S. interference in their affairs any more. They have all the resources that we lack. They have thriving democracies. It's their century, and they know it. As Evo Morales--the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a largely indigenous country)--has said, "The time of the people has come." He has also said, "We want partners, not bosses." Are we--or rather, our U.S.-based corporate predators--going to settle for being respectful, equal trade partners, or not? Is that Obama's intention, or not? And if it is, will Diebold & brethren permit him to enter the White House?

I can't read these entrails very well. The signs and omens are contradictory. All I know is that we don't have democracy here, in any real sense. Our people are trying. Obama's supporters are trying. Election reform activists are trying. Lots of people are trying. But we are still suffering under a fascist/corporate coup and have virtually no control over our government or our national political establishment, which are both answerable to war profiteers and distant foreign creditors (Saudi Arabia, China), and not to us--we, the people.

Are they going to drag us into Oil War II, in our own hemisphere, or not?

-----------------

* "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html


-------------------------------

It's worth quoting Lindorff's whole piece...

Talk is Cheap, Even with Enemies, and By the Way, Rivals Aren't Enemies
Submitted by dlindorff on May 30, 2008 - 9:41am.

By Dave Lindorff

What the hell is Barack Obama talking about?

He says that America should be talking with leaders in Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Syria. Fine. But he calls this “talking with our enemies.”

What enemies?

Let’s get something straight. Enemies are people who are fighting against you, who are trying to destroy you. Is Cuba fighting against America? Is Iran fighting against America? Is Venezuela fighting against America? Syria? China? No. These countries may be rivals, but they are not enemies.

The closest we come to having an actual enemy in today’s world is North Korea, where we are technically still in some kind of truce following a hot war, but of course that war itself has been over for half a frigging century, and nobody has been killing anyone on the Korean Peninsula in decades.

http://www.democrats.com/blog/14542

-----------------------

Note: I have adamant objections to the inclusion of Venezuela on this "enemies list"--even in trying to say that they are not our "enemy." It is a triumph of the Bush Junta and corporate 'news' propaganda that a scrupulously lawful, beneficial, DEMOCRATIC government like Chavez's could come anywhere near such a list. There is more to it than simply NO aggression (as per Iran or China). Venezuela is a FULLY democratic state, and is not even a rival, let alone an "enemy" of the U.S.--unless you consider Exxon Mobil to be a friend. Chavez despises Bush. Who doesn't? And he isn't afraid to say so. That makes him a truth-teller. He pushed Exxon Mobil out of his country, but welcomed Norways's Statoil, British BP, France's Total...and Chevron! --all of whom agreed to Venezuela's terms (a 60/40 split of the profits for the Venezuelan people). That does NOT make Venezuela a rival OR an enemy of the U.S., unless you think that the Bush Cartel = the U.S. In fact, the PEOPLE of the U.S. ought to follow Chavez's example, and tell Exxon Mobil to go fuck itself sideways. We oppose corporate resource wars. We want FAIR TRADE. We need to be rid of monopolies and corporate predators. Venezuela is MORE democratic that WE are--and they are NEITHER our "rival" nor our "enemy." They are FRIENDS!

[subsuelo]

2. another great post Peace Patriot

as I Kucinich supporter, I would like to know what your thought on Dennis are? He was the only candidate that made any sense when asked on the immigration question as I recall. He basically said that we need to drop NAFTA which would result in less poverty and therefore less reason for people suffering the hardships under NAFTA to want to come to the U.S.

Do you know if he has spoken out about the recent provocations towards Venezuela and in Bolivia?

[Peace Patriot]

6. I think Kucinich is great. He was the only one who talked any sense at all on

immigration and NAFTA. Corporate agriculture driving the campesinos (best food producers) off the land IS the reason for illegal immigration from Mexico and central America, as it is the reason for the vast migrations from once self-sustaining rural communities to urban shantytowns throughout Latin America. You have to BACK UP and solve that problem (NAFTA-created corp ag) to solve the immigration problem. MOST of the immigrants from Mex/central America DON'T WANT TO BE HERE. They would rather be in the home communities with their families. And NAFTA, at the same time that it drives these huge immigrations--to urban areas, and north to the U.S.--is LOWERING U.S. labor standards (wages, benefits, safety) to Latin American levels--and worse--rather than "raising all boats." U.S. corps first pick up and move everything to Mexico--leaving U.S. communities devastated; then, when Mexican workers get uppity and start organizing a union, the corp moves on to Cambodia. Wage costs to the corp have thereby dropped from $10-$15/hr in the U.S., to $2-$3/hr in Mexico, to $.25/hr in Cambodia. Mexico gets a few jobs TEMPORARILY, in selected areas--but completely insufficient to make up for the loss of campesino farm lands; then they lose even those jobs to globalization. Globalization is a means of creating one, worldwide, global slave market.

It has other impacts. For instance, the militarization of society with the excuse of the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs." The Bush Junta is larding billions of our tax dollars in military aid on Mexico, not to stem the tide of dangerous drugs, but to CONTROL MEXICO'S POOR when they start protesting the impacts of globalization, and trying to organize to stop it. The teachers' union uprising in Oaxaca--smashed by the federal police-- and the egregious mass murder of union leaders in Colombia, are two examples. The purpose of the "war on drugs" is to destroy workers' rights, not to control illicit drugs. The illicit drugs never stop coming no matter how many billions we pour into this "war" because the intention of the this "war" is not as stated.

Yet another devastation to Mexico and points south is the use of farm lands for corporate corn biofuel production, which has caused the price of the corn tortilla, Mexico's staple food, to skyrocket. And it has other horrible impacts--the use of toxic pesticides, the loss of seed corn diversity, among them.

Again, we have to BACK UP and undo the damage that NAFTA, globalization and the wrongful "war on drugs" have inflicted on their economies and societies, and on ours, to SOLVE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

We cannot look at our own economy by itself to solve ANY economic problem. NAFTA and globalization have vastly changed the economic landscape. When we use corn biofuel, we are driving Mexican campesinos off the land, and starving the urban poor in Mexico City--and driving them north. When we shop at Wal-Mart for goods made in Cambodia or China or other cheap labor markets, we are destroying our own labor protections and job market by ENTICING our corps to GO THERE for the manufacture of goods. That process, in turn, is driven by OIL--oil for ocean tankers, oil for trucks, oil for jet transport, and oil for your car to take you way away from your neighborhood to shop at Wal-Mart. Thus the fascists and corporatists who are running things drag us into an oil war in the Middle East, and will be dragging us into an oil war in this hemisphere, if we don't smarten up and take back our government.

I don't know what Kucinich has said recently about these issues--nor about current Bushite war planning in South America--but I do know that he is the ONLY candidate for president who appreciated the complexity of this issue. And Edwards was beginning to. We have to STOP destroying Mexico's economy in order to slow the flood of illegal immigrants. These destructive policies make the rich richer, and do great harm to everyone else. I do think that Obama tends toward peaceful, rather than warmongering, solutions, but I don't yet know if he is merely Mr. 'Win-Win' Nice Guy for another Corporate Ruler fuckover of everybody. I do think he's intelligent and educable. I think the Corporate Rulers see their thing utterly collapsing in the face of DEMOCRACY in South America--and these Bolivarian ideas are also heading north (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico itself if the Corporates hadn't stolen the last election)--and they are desperate to keep control of the western hemisphere's economy, and to regain control of Latin America's resources (oil, gas, water, forests, cheap labor, etc.). It looks like Obama's on board for that, without the warmongering. But if his policies don't help the Corporate Rulers, it will be back to the warmongering. He is not radical enough to really solve it--although someone pointed out to me, the other day, that neither was FDR when he first ran for president.

[brindis_desala]

4. If nothing else Bush and the neocons have shown the

limits of military power. The question we need to be asking ourselves is who benefits. Clearly the Pentagon cannot manage another occupation so who benefits from the rising cost of energy. The investors in "alternative green energy" in anticipation of the rapidly dwindling cheap oil.

[mac2]

5. What would we do without Chavez cheap oil to compete

with Exxon Mobile and BP?

These S. American Empire builders are the same as during Reagan's time. They don't leave government but flow in and out on need. We should have jailed them the first time but Ford lied to free them. They are the "hanger oners" who live off the government. God forbid they get a real job!

I'd like BP out of Alaska too. Neither of them pay royalties and don't take care of the pipeline. Exxon betrayed the natives of the area by not giving them jobs and money. The Exxon oil spill has not been paid either.

[anonymous171]

3. At least he won't obliterate them. The Globalist Queen and the mad warmonger will.