Originally Posted by
Kid Of The Black Hole
Thats not it, though. Was there a war going on under Clinton with Oil For Food? If the answer is "de facto yes" then the question becomes where were all the antiwar protesters? Surely a change in semantics (it wasn't technically a "war" like it is now) can't have that pronounced an effect? (ie lotsa tough typing keyboard kommando protestors now, very few then)
The point isn't that there is NO war in the real world, but that war is all there is. Including right here and now. So protesting Iraq or screaming to Save Darfur is a sort of myopia that is too oblivious to even be charitably termed 'myopia' at all. If any of these protestors were serious, they would have alot more substance to their program than simply wanting the troops out of Iraq. They don't and the reason is transparently obvious. Thats why no one cares what they say or bothers to listen to them and why they are completely irrelevent.
Its not existentialism unless you intend that to mean "recognizing that our very existence is at stake".
iAs long as there is an empire the size of the US,and one with a military as big as the one it has,it will always be at war with someone in order to justify its existence as an empire,and to keep its military complex going.If there are no enemies we will have to create them.
This is something both wings of the US Corporate Party are equally guilty of.
The same thing is true,for China.These are the two nations that pose the greatest threat to humanity as a whole,and China,by and large,is a US corporate/state creation.
I see the big picture.That's why I am an anarchist.I realize there will be no peace in the world,so long as there are borders,nation-states,and corporations who gobble up resources like Pac-Man.I would have thought humanity,or a goodly per centage of it,would have evolved to this point by now.Wars,like corporate greed, are just a symptom of an underlying disease,one that we may never see addressed in our lifetimes. And no,concentrating on one narrow issue like Iraq isn't going to solve anything.Clinton 41 and Clinton 44 are both right wing warmongers.I think most of the left now realizes this,on one level or another,even those like Randi Rhodes,who say they will support her,just to elect Democrats.Chris Wallace nailed Hillary this morning,when he compared her to Reagan.I have been calling her a right-winger all along over at PI.Now I hear Mike Malloy doing it.The Clintons only fool the dumbest elements of the right into thinking they are "liburals".Nobody else is buying into their charade,But she has so much corporate,so much establishment backing,she is going to win.She will be our margaret Thatcher,our Golda Mier,and that's not a good thing.
The problem is,we need a new tactic,and a new movement for societal change,and we need to use forums like this,as a means to formulate new stratagies.
