Comments on: Beyond the Rhetoric of Withdrawal: Our Unknown Air War Over Iraq http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:01:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Deadbeat http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4573 Deadbeat Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:32:58 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4573 It's not about "winning" it is about the destruction and crippling of the Iraqi infrastructure and economy -- keeping Iraq in the "stone age". Similar infrastructure destruction was wrought in Lebanon as well. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to oust Saddam. Oil was needed to "fund the invasion" but oil is not the primary goal of Iraq and Iran. The primary goal, especially sought by "neo-conservatives" is the destruction and disruption of their societies in order to maintain hegemony in the region -- especially if that hegemony benefits Israel. To ashley, Who is the "we" in "getting the country back". For most people "we" never had the country in the first place. "We" won't get anything if "we" do not build solidarity. To do that the issue of racism (especially Zionism as it is practiced in the U.S.) and classism must be dealt with. Why should the unprivileged "we" believe and trust the privileged "we" who will immediate jettison them at first chance. Clearly Ron Paul falls into the "privileged" we who supported a man who created the condition that has lead to the greatest concentration of power for the privileged few. It’s not about “winning” it is about the destruction and crippling of the Iraqi infrastructure and economy — keeping Iraq in the “stone age”. Similar infrastructure destruction was wrought in Lebanon as well.
The invasion of Iraq was necessary to oust Saddam. Oil was needed to “fund the invasion” but oil is not the primary goal of Iraq and Iran. The primary goal, especially sought by “neo-conservatives” is the destruction and disruption of their societies in order to maintain hegemony in the region — especially if that hegemony benefits Israel.

To ashley,
Who is the “we” in “getting the country back”. For most people “we” never had the country in the first place. “We” won’t get anything if “we” do not build solidarity. To do that the issue of racism (especially Zionism as it is practiced in the U.S.) and classism must be dealt with. Why should the unprivileged “we” believe and trust the privileged “we” who will immediate jettison them at first chance. Clearly Ron Paul falls into the “privileged” we who supported a man who created the condition that has lead to the greatest concentration of power for the privileged few.

]]> By: ed kinane http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4563 ed kinane Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:26:45 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4563 ashley, re the reasons for war i think our analyses are complementary -- one doesn't trump the other. as smedley, says, "war is a raquet." and that's true of most any war most anywhere. but we have to ask why bush inc. chose to invade iraq (with its vast supply of oil) and why it is threatening to invade iran (with its vast supplies of oil and gas) instead of, say, some non-oil bearing country. or why the bushies chose not to invade their business ally saudi arabia (with its vast supply of oil) in the wake of 9/11 -- given that most of the 9/11 hijackers seem to have been saudis. ashley,
re the reasons for war i think our analyses are complementary — one doesn’t trump the other.
as smedley, says, “war is a raquet.” and that’s true of most any war most anywhere.
but we have to ask why bush inc. chose to invade iraq (with its vast supply of oil) and why it is threatening to invade iran (with its vast supplies of oil and gas) instead of, say, some non-oil bearing country. or why the bushies chose not to invade their business ally saudi arabia (with its vast supply of oil) in the wake of 9/11 — given that most of the 9/11 hijackers seem to have been saudis.

]]> By: Michael Kenny http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4562 Michael Kenny Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:21:55 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4562 The point to bear in mind is that the air war got the US precisely nowhere. It was still necessary to invade and that in fact just made matters worse. If the US wants to waste its money and wreck its economy by bombing Iraq, so what? The world now knows that the US can't win! The point to bear in mind is that the air war got the US precisely nowhere. It was still necessary to invade and that in fact just made matters worse. If the US wants to waste its money and wreck its economy by bombing Iraq, so what? The world now knows that the US can’t win!

]]> By: ashley http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4538 ashley Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:01:37 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/beyond-the-rhetoric-of-withdrawal-our-unknown-air-war-over-iraq/#comment-4538 Ed wrote: "Despite global pressure to withdraw, Bush Inc. – and indeed the broader US power structure – has no intention of giving up Iraq. The potential oil bonanza is too huge. And Iran – with its oil bonanza – is next door." I think this misses the main point, Smedley Butler's point that 'war is a racket'. Ongoing bombing is good for business. Strategic control of oil delivery corridors is somewhat important - though obviously it was far better before this war than after. But never to be underestimated is the need of the defense industry to have somewhere to have its ordnance disbursed so that new orders are forthcoming. Without war, they go out of business. Not only is it good for business, but also political hegemony of the unseen oligarchical operatives running the show. A wartime administration operates with far greater leeway in terms of dominating propaganda which it is unpatriotic - if not outright treason - to challenge and also undermining any system of checks and balances built into the governance structure. America, for example, is a democracy in name only and only those in deep denial can believe otherwise - for that is all it is, a belief. Like the belief that we are always the good guys, no matter how many bombs we drop on innocent civilians, no matter how many lies we tell about regimes we have decided to undermine. The history is clear, from the Mexican wars, the Great Wars in Europe, the Vietnamese war and so on: we undermine treaties, tell huge lies about those we intend to exploit, and then exploit them. The issue is not about bringing the troops home. The issue is about taking the country back. One way to do this is to vote for Ron Paul. Ideally he gets out of the Republican Party and there is a huge groundswell for independent party politics that carries Ron into the White House. This is highly unlikely. But just think: if it doesn't happen, nothing will change, the oligarchs will continue in power, and the bombing will continue from one country to another until finally we bit off more than we can chew and are bombed ourselves. What goes around comes around. The Bottom Line is that even citizens who are against the war do not feel personally responsible for the bombs being dropped on innocent children. 'They' are doing this, we think. No, it is WE who are doing this by allowing it to happen in our names with our tax dollars. If nothing else, everyone working in the defense industry in the US could simply walk out! Ed wrote: “Despite global pressure to withdraw, Bush Inc. – and indeed the broader US power structure – has no intention of giving up Iraq. The potential oil bonanza is too huge. And Iran – with its oil bonanza – is next door.”

I think this misses the main point, Smedley Butler’s point that ‘war is a racket’. Ongoing bombing is good for business. Strategic control of oil delivery corridors is somewhat important - though obviously it was far better before this war than after. But never to be underestimated is the need of the defense industry to have somewhere to have its ordnance disbursed so that new orders are forthcoming. Without war, they go out of business.

Not only is it good for business, but also political hegemony of the unseen oligarchical operatives running the show. A wartime administration operates with far greater leeway in terms of dominating propaganda which it is unpatriotic - if not outright treason - to challenge and also undermining any system of checks and balances built into the governance structure.

America, for example, is a democracy in name only and only those in deep denial can believe otherwise - for that is all it is, a belief. Like the belief that we are always the good guys, no matter how many bombs we drop on innocent civilians, no matter how many lies we tell about regimes we have decided to undermine. The history is clear, from the Mexican wars, the Great Wars in Europe, the Vietnamese war and so on: we undermine treaties, tell huge lies about those we intend to exploit, and then exploit them.

The issue is not about bringing the troops home. The issue is about taking the country back. One way to do this is to vote for Ron Paul. Ideally he gets out of the Republican Party and there is a huge groundswell for independent party politics that carries Ron into the White House. This is highly unlikely. But just think: if it doesn’t happen, nothing will change, the oligarchs will continue in power, and the bombing will continue from one country to another until finally we bit off more than we can chew and are bombed ourselves.

What goes around comes around. The Bottom Line is that even citizens who are against the war do not feel personally responsible for the bombs being dropped on innocent children. ‘They’ are doing this, we think. No, it is WE who are doing this by allowing it to happen in our names with our tax dollars.

If nothing else, everyone working in the defense industry in the US could simply walk out!

]]>