> SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The US sponsored the
>> fundamentalists - again because Afghanistan is relevant for *Russia*.
>>
>
> It would appear that Russia is still regarded as a problem in Washington,
> wouldn't you agree? [...]
>
>> The second time - you'll never believe this - Afghanistan happened to be
>> harboring terrorists who attacked New York and Washington.
>>
>
> So the official explanation is the right one. That *would* be
> a first.
>
>
>> As for the British,
>> Afghanistan was definitely relevant to them because they really cared
>> about India.
>>
>
> India seems to loom rather large in American policymakers' minds as
> well, though on more favorable terms (for India) than in the days
> of John Company or the Raj. It's pretty striking, actually, how themes
> keep recurring that go back to the days of Palmerston, mutato nomine
> (for the United Kingdom read the United States).
>
So if I have this right, just as the US was contemplating an invasion of Afghanistan, possibly to undermine Russia and/or support India - or both, or vice versa - terrorists based there happened to attack New York and Washington, providing just the excuse they needed! Those imperialists have all the luck.
>> Why is he blundering into a multi-billion dollar
>> stimulus package? Tax cuts? Bank bailout? Health care overhaul? Why is
>> he blundering into not recognizing gay marriage or requiring hedge fund
>> registration?
>>
>
> "Blundering" begs the question. He doesn't actually strike one as the
> blundering type. So far, he seems to be doing the things that the most
> powerful elites want, on the financial matters you mention.
That is, unless you believe that the powerful elites don't want the financial system rescued because that would interfere with their plot to cause a financial panic so that they can re-proletarianize the homeowning working class. But then that would be preposterous.....But what about health care? Do the powerful financial elites want a standardized national insurance exchange plus subsidies and a public health plan? Or do they want to tax employer-provided insurance and sponsor medical savings accounts? Wait, let me guess - it all depends on which "wing of capital" we're talking about [etc.]....
> As for gay
> marriage, that's a classic Democratic party bait-and-switch: raise
> the hopes of some activist constituency and then sell 'em out once you're
> in office. Pushing for gay marriage would damage him and his party
> with voters who *do* have somewhere else to go -- to wit, the Republicans.
> But backing off on it, he calculates -- correctly, based on past
> experience -- won't do any harm among the enlightened liberals
> who support gay marriage. O & Co. assume, and are probably right
> to assume, that the lesser-evil argument will continue to mesmerize
> these highly intelligent people, who fall for the same
> shabby transparent trick year after tiresome year.
>
Wait!!! Why are you leaving out the powerful financial elites? What's *their* posish???
SA