further on Stan Goff
darurateau at doramail.com
Fri Aug 1 01:51:02 MDT 2003
Stan Goff wrong, one:
Every thing this administration has told the public has been a lie from the very beginning. The way you determine whether on not the Bush cabinet is lying is by whether or not their lips are moving. They started with a fraudulent election, consolidated by a right-wing judicial fiat. They had planned the invasion of Afghanistan as a first step for developing a standing military presence in the region the summer prior to 9/11. They'd even informed the Pakistanis of their intention to invade in October. Then the 9/11 hijackers fly in like a scourge against the nation, but like Santa Claus for the Bush's neo-con clique. All the plans were put on fast forward, and the pretext was now available for advancing a very aggressive domestic agenda for the development of a police state infrastructure. September 11th was a neo-con wet dream.<<
No, the invasion of Afghanistan was an improvisation on the 'regime change for Iraq riff'. I'm sure military 'contingency' plans for Afghanistan existed prior to 9-11--afterall, Clinton ordered bombing of Afghanistan in an attempt to wipe out OBL. But the US-and Saudi surrogate of Pakistan was supposed to be the preferred control mechanism there. Afterall, negotiating a major gas pipeline out of S. Asia is a strategic consideration but not one necessarily requiring a war.
Goff wrong, two:
His movement says support our troops, but until the militarization of the US federal government and its outsized, rogue foreign policies are dealt with IN the US, there can be no unequivocal support of the troops. Bring home Ole Shoe by paying him off with millions of Iraqi money (why not since the US and the UN have stolen Iraqi billions)? For example, see a story like:
They were kicking and beating me," Storr told ABCNEWS' Good Morning America, recalling his days as a prisoner of war in Iraq. "I was in a lot of pain and they were threatening to kill me. They were not asking any more questions. I was on the ground screaming, wondering, 'Why don't they just kill me?' "
While for most Americans, the 1991 Persian Gulf War is remembered as a brief event, for the 21 members of the U.S. military who became Iraqi POWs it recalls long, torture-filled days.
Now, in the hopes of preventing mistreatment of future prisoners of war, Storr and 16 other American POWs are pursuing a $900 million lawsuit against Iraq, President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
Stephen Fennell, an attorney for the Iraqi POWs, said the lawsuit, filed last April, sends a message to Iraqi officials that if they abuse prisoners, they will have to pay.
And Fennell believes the group has an excellent chance of winning, thanks to the precedent set in the case of Terry Anderson, the former Associated Press reporter who was awarded $41 million in frozen Iranian assets for his six-year imprisonment in Lebanon.
Congress has also amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow lawsuits against countries on the State Department's list of nations sponsoring torture end of excerpt<<
Goff wrong, three:
The international antiwar movement had firmed up political opposition around the world and forced the delays that culminated in the UN Security Council becoming a key arena of struggle. For all the
infantile leftists who dismissed the UN on moral and ideological ? and therefore idealist ? grounds, I would say look now at Iraq and see how
politics translates into military reality.
We stalled where we could stall, and there is an effect. <<
Wrong again. The UN and/or the euroliberal efforts of Chirac and Schroeder were but a smokescreen and succeeded only in taking the force out of the real anti-war movements.
It's not about Stan Goff or his personality or his sincerity. I'm sure he can learn from analysis that is better than his, as can we all.
Get your free email from www.doramail.com with 30 Megs of disk space in webhosting and e-mail storage!
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Marxism