[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama
sartesian at earthlink.net
Thu Jun 26 20:46:55 MDT 2008
No, I don't rely on the HOR resolution as the basis for the argument. I've
made it quite clear; there are other factors... And one of those other
factors is a mere technicality-- like the fact that resolution was not
unanimously approved, was it?
But.... since HOR resolutions are the topic let's look at one just recently
introduced #362. This gem calls on the US president to blockade Iran and
conduct the most stringent searches of all vehicles, ships, etc attempting
to enter ports in Iran. It also calls on the president to block all
movement of Iranian officials unless those official are engaged in
negotiating an end to Iran's nuclear program.
And this gem? Picked up 208 co-sponsors in the House, so far, in its first
Meanwhile, Resolution 5507- you remember that one, fully funding withdrawal
of all US military forces and contractors from Iraq and prohibiting
establishment of permanent US military bases there... how many co-sponsor
you think that one got? Go ahead and check the HOR Clerk's website. You
won't be surprised. At least I hope not.
But I see your point about Bush, the neo-cons, the invasion of Iraq and the
relationship of forces, wars are caused by stupid, ignorant, narrow-minded
bourgeoisie, whereas an enlightened bourgeoisie, the sort that existed, yeah
where does that enlightened bourgeoisie exist? would never do anything as
stupid as invading Iraq, or Vietnam, or Cuba, or supporting apartheid South
Africa-- or getting caught supporting coups.
In answer to your question:
" So now let me ask you a question: Do you think the "irrational" Bush
administration would have launched the invasion if it could have foreseen
the loss of more than 4000 troops and tens of thousands of wounded, hundreds
of billions of dollars in expenditures, the decline of the Republican party,
the strengthening rather than weakening of Iranian influence, the weakening
rather than strengthening of US influence, the violent instability
precipitated by the occupation and its effect on Iraq's oil fields and the
oil price? I'm counting on an honest answer."
First, it's a ridiculous question. Try this to make it clear how absurd a
question that is: If Hitler knew he was going to lose everything before he
invaded Russia, would he have invaded Russia? This is a nonsense argument.
The irrationality of capitalism and its agents is driven, not by knowledge,
but by a deeper rationality of necessity. It was necessary to create a war.
Bush, being a free man, recognized his function in making necessity
But be that as it may-- Bush would and did discount precisely those other
estimates of the costs, economic, political, international, social, of
invading Iraq. He, as the agent of capital, NEEDED to ignore, deride those
That's an honest answer to a misguided question.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new
USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama
> S. Artesian writes:
More information about the Marxism