[lbo-talk] WMD redux

[Carrol Cox]

Although I cringe a bit on some of Gar's phrasing, I think he is essentially
right; in fact something like his point should be the left point of
departure in reference to _any_ past, present, or future U.S. foreign and/or
military policy. Such a perspective, for example, would have headed off much
left silliness on both the Afghanistan & Iraq wars. The only correct
position on was a flat, un-nuanced NO to U.S. policy.

Carrol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Gar Lipow
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:34 PM
> To: LBO
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] WMD redux
> 
> >So it looks like another war is in the pipes, this time against Syria.
The
> pretext, as usual, is WMDs, which would be laughable if it did not have
> tragic consequences.
> 
> >Here is a an alternative explanation
> >http://stormcloudsgathering.com/
> 
> Way too complicated.  Every so often the US government corners a small
> third world nation in a dark alley and slams it against a wall.  More
> extensive military interventions such as invasions occur for more
extensive
> reasons. But sending cruise missiles against an enemy of the week, without
> even seeking to do long term strategic advantage - it is just a temper
> tantrum to remind everybody that the US government is still dangerous.
>  Most people who went to a US public high school will recognize the
> behavior pattern. As will anyone who live in a US neighborhood with a lot
> of street crime.  A Syria attack is a low cost way of reminding others
that
> the US government is crazy violent so it continues to control "the fear".
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > So it looks like another war is in the pipes, this time against Syria.
The
> > pretext, as usual, is WMDs, which would be laughable if it did not have
> > tragic consequences.
> >
> > Here is a an alternative explanation
> > http://stormcloudsgathering.com/
> >
> > The argument they propose is that the US maintains the value of the
dollar
> > by military enforcement of dollar denominated oil trade.  It does have a
> > strong libertarian/conspiratorial/goldbug smell, but that by itself does
> > not mean that the point they are making is invalid.  Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Wojtek
> >
> > "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
> Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com
> Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
> Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk