It’s simple really, the Left always fails because it cripples itself. The Left brings a butter-knife to a nuke fight. Words. Don’t. Change. Anything.

I always find something funny about the left and their “let’s join up and fight city hall mentality!” You talk about how the evil “supercapitalists” unleash destruction all over the world, and you can stop them! You people and your cardboard signs and cliche slogans!

Question: if they’re not beyond killing hunderds of thousands, what makes you think they’re beyond putting a bullet in your forehead?

The fact that you’re still alive means they aren’t worried.

Ron you miss the major point. There are many reasons for wars and we can present a history of wars and the motives. THE issue is what is the motive for the United States’ most recent war — the war in Iraq. The left has been telling us everything (primarily War for Oil) other than racism/Zionism.

The left so wanted to avoid any confrontation of Zionism that they demobilized the anti-war movement in order to support warmonger John Kerry in 2004. The anti-war movement has yet to recover and remains in an atrophic state.

As I mentioned your colleagues rather than deal with Zionism has made all kind of excuses to divert the public attention away from it. If Zionism was confronted it would remove the MAIN impetus of why the U.S. is at war in the Middle East.

This is not to say that there would be no future wars or any new motives. Clearly citizens would have to be ever vigilant. However confronting Zionism removes THE CURRENT MOTIVE for both U.S. and Israel belligerency. This is what apologist such as Chomsky and Naomi Klein and many of your contemporaries has sought to use other explanations to divert the public attention away from.

It is clear now due to the Scott McClellan revelations that Bush did NOT invade Iraq for oil. His goal was to “bring democracy” to the “backward terrorists” — a goal that is racist/Zionist to its core.

It becomes ever so clear why the left in the U.S. is such a miserable state of disarray because they do not really want to confront racism/Zionism.

“We’re all Israelis now.”

It seems, according to McClellan, that Bush drive to war was the desire to “bring democracy to the Middle East”. That there is a “War on Terrorism”. How did the word “terrorism” get applied to whole group of people — Zionism.

The real reason behind the war, according to McClellan, sounds much more like the racist drivel of “White Man’s Burden”. In other words the War in Iraq is much more grounded in racism/Zionism than it is grounded in the “War for Oil” canard. Not once in the round of interviews that I’ve seen does McClellan bring up the topic of oil. Yet we’ve been fed this pablum by the “left”. Is it any wonder why the anti-war “movement” is now in a state of disarray and demobilization.

Zionism has embedded and indoctrinated Americans to see Middle Easterners, Arabs in particular as “terrorists”. Terrorist has become the new “nigger” and has led the United States to war. The “left” has done an awful disservice by not confronting Zionism head on. Clearly this aspect of Scott McClellan revelation will be swept under the rug by the “left”.

Blind men and women have been the motor of modern history and the source of endless misery and destruction. Aspiring leaders of great powers can neither understand nor admit the fact that their strategies are extremely dangerous because statecraft by its very nature always calculates the ability of a nation’s military and economic resources to overcome whatever challenges it confronts. To reject such traditional reasoning, and to question the value of conventional wisdom and react to international crises realistically on the basis of past failures would make them unsuited to command. The result is that politicians succeed in terms of their personal careers, states make monumental errors, and people suffer. The great nations of Europe and Japan put such illusions into practice repeatedly before 1945.[/i]

From The Age of War: The United States Confronts the World by Gabriel Kolko

I agree with Ron’s premise that the anti-war movement needs to be reinvigorated. And I also agree with Ron’s description of the power of the milaritary industrial complex and the pull it has on politicians. However what is missing from Ron’s analysis is why the anti-war movement who Chomsky described as the next “superpower” demobilized in the first place. Understanding this reason will help to reinvorate the “movement”.

The primary reason for the demobilization is the left’s failure to confront Zionism and to fully understand how Zionism became intertwined with militarism especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.

It is clear that both the Democrats and Republican are in total agreement with regards to advancing Isreal’s hegemony in the Middle East even if it bankrupts the U.S. Zionism help to provide the U.S. with an “enemy” called “terrorists” that the politican can use to see fear to the American people and to continue to justify large military budgets.

The problem for the U.S. is that it is not in the same economic position nor it the rest of the world whereby the U.S. can maintain a domestic economy at the same time maintain large military budget and engage in wars all over the world.

As Dr. Petras aptly describe the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC)works together to maintain this current neo-conservative madness of using the U.S. miltary in this manner regardless of the impact to the domestic economy.

However the “left” deliberately demobilize the anti-war movement in order to CONCEAL this arrangement. In other words in order to really fight the current driving force of U.S. militarism today Zionism MUST BE directly confronted.

What occurred was that the anti-war movement split along this challenge. One faction spoke directly against Zionism while another faction wanted to speak only to “War For Oil” and “U.S. Imperialism” in order to avoid this challenge. Clearly the latter faction, rather than confront Zionism, chose to embrace the Democratic candidate in 2004 who himself ran to the right of George Bush. And the anti-war movement has been weak and suffering every since.

In my opinion the reason why you won’t see a remobilization is that many on the “faux” left are unwilling to confront Zionism and to remobilize the anti-war movement means bring in voice who are willing to bring up the elephant in the room.

Because the “left” is unwilling to challenge Zionism clearly politicans will not especailly since they have to contend with the ZPC power as lobbyist and their media reach.

The problem therefore are not Mr. Jacobs’ critics. The problem are Mr. Jacobs’ colleagues.

The antiwar movement is likewise extinct, running aground as it has on the rocks of the not so silent majority of Zionist enablers embedded within it.