[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama

S. Artesian 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 
month.

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 
manifest.

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 
costs.

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 mailing list