[Marxism] Fooling With The Gun
jeffrubard at fusemail.com
Tue Mar 2 16:02:25 MST 2004
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:36:13 -0500
> From: "David Quarter" <davidquarter at sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] re:Peace in Haiti: Pax Americana
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
> <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> <20040302202147.EDOD17655.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net at Default>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> From: "M. Junaid Alam"
> <junaidalam at msalam.net>
>> Well all that aside, what the heck was Aristide doing this whole
>> jerking off? Really a pathetic spectacle, he put up _no_
> resistance at
>> all, not even in rhetoric, and simply fled. Makes Saddam look like
> The proximate reason for demise is that, unlike Chavez, Aristide
> never had the backing of the working class and poor. Arisite's real
> power stemmed from the support he received from the U.S.
This is not true, Aristide is a Haitian popular hero whose existence
is even remarkable.
> Yet it is obvious by now that having the backing of the majoirty will
> by no means guarantee political longevity. The countless number
> of U.S. inspired coups throughout history against popularly elected
> Latin America governments attests to this.
This is boilerplate: perhaps that has obvious throughout history.
> Either way, if the U.S. wants a leader gone from the power/a foe
> eliminated, there is very little that the targeted person will be able
> to do. In exceptional circumstances, they will remain in power
> (e.g., Chavez), but more often than not, they will face the same
> scenario as Aristide...
This is twisted: US security forces have a great of deal of latitude, but
are actually under very strict procedural guidelines a la the rest of the
bureaucracy. They actually can't do Mossad-style assassinations
in another country (the reason the CIA spends so much setting rightists
up), and the armed forces as a whole have absolutely zero *authority*
over US citizens unless martial law has been declared. The reason
Chavez is still in power is that it would have been over someone's lethally
injected body given his conduct with respect to the US and that person could
even be lil' ol' W.; anything else you hear is a extreme-right lie, and
fallen for other reasons.
> When you are sitting behind a computer, this is the type bravado
> that might spring to mind.
> When, or if, you ever experience a situation where you are utterly
> immasculated, for example, have a gun pointed to your head and
> threatened with severe injury or death,
This is itself bravado; a great deal of left-wing agitation turns upon
handling the threat of physical violence, such that it is very much to
the point people understand themselves not to be "immasculated" --
I've had guns pointed at me twice in my life and acquitted myself
decently in each case. Really, there is no need to build up effectively
unaccountable security-state personnel and the like at the expense of
> you'll realize that *there is no line of defense* that you or Lennox
> Lewis or Tito Ortix for that matter will be able muster up when
> under attack by the most powerful army in the world...
Actually, that's not true: the most powerful *army* in the world has
civil-unrest problems it cannot effectively solve. (This is why I was
looking for Lause to lay some hubris on me, BTW: this is a kind of thinking
which ends in something worse than broken bones).
More information about the Marxism