en-us http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/ Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:04:08 GMT Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:04:08 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009649.html Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:05:09 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009648.html Maybe a better way to ask this `why' question, is to speculate on the >beginning idea, what if we had a reliable puppet in Iraq? > >Here are some answers. >1.) The US could insure US big oil, big energy (particular Texas based >firms) access to Iraqi oil fields, development contracts, in >pipelines, refineries, and port facilities. These are big league >economic investments and profits. > >2.) The US could have a stratgic partner beyond Israel to coordinate >US middle eastern policy on all fronts. The above raises a few questions in my mind. Minor points first. Are the terms "reliable puppet" and "strategic partner" interchangeable? or do they mean different things? Objectively it seems to me that Israel is more a reliable puppet regime than a partner, since a partner indicates a relationship between autonomous, if not equal, bodies. But of course Israel isn't an autonomous state, it is a state that utterly depends on the US for its contin]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:41:25 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009647.html Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:08:37 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009646.html wrote: > No doubt both Chomsky and Bush believe this. But, once again, I'll ask: what > is the mechanism of this advantage? How does it work, or would it work? I'm probably derailing the conversation here, but I think Doug's stubborn questioning here is more than called for. Even if it were possible to figure out the exact aims and beliefs of the war planners--which, considering the wide range of interests at play, would be nearly impossible to articulate with any specificity--those goals tell us nothing about the effects of the war. The only thing they tell is is about ideology, which is telling us next to nothing. Chomskyan-style digging for historical documents makes for nice reportage, but it says nothing about the mechanics and techniques of the state. It only tell us about the intentions of its agents, which are never perfectly accomplished anyway. Gaddis said it best: believing and shitting are two different thi]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:02:38 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009645.html seriously, though, it gives a decent overview of how Iran's democratic > procedures came to be, a history of the protests tha have been going on > for a decade, at least, as well as a brief history of the > government-sponsored assasinations and covers up that, when the story > was revealed, halped contribute to rising political protest among the > "lost generation" (those born after the '79 revolution) > > In short, it shows how it is that these recent protests erupted and they > are part of a wider struggle for civil rights: =============== Writing/speaking of Habermas in Iran... [snip] While in Iran you also met prominent intellectual reformists associated with President Khatami. Do you believe that the reformers are prepared, where necessary, to overcome the conflict emanating from the Iranian Constitution between democracy and theocracy in favor of democracy? Mohsen Kadivar is a younger mullah who went to jail af]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:50:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009644.html Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:43:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009643.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:29:02 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009642.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:28:35 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009641.html writes: > Check out the announcement video at Huffington Post, jeeeez she just rambles > and rambles and rambles...... > Is it scandal or further ambitions? Well, they've got her dead to rights on the bribery, it's hard to hide the fact that a state contractor bought you a whole HOUSE... -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:23:20 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009640.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:18:56 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009639.html wrote: > "Jordan Hayes" writes: > > > You think that means Goodbye? > > I think it means they'll be putting the bracelets on her soon. > > -- > In Solidarity, > Billy O'Connor > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > -- http://left-wingwacko.blogspot.com/]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:56:46 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009638.html writes: > You think that means Goodbye? I think it means they'll be putting the bracelets on her soon. -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:32:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009637.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:28:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009636.html ]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:36:18 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009634.html Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq Doug? I'm not really sure. No doubt it had something to do with oil, but exactly what, I don't know. And, as the outcome of the invasion shows, they were probably wrong.]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:35:18 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009635.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:33:13 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009633.html But, once again, I'll ask: what is the mechanism of this advantage? > How does it work, or would it work? Simple divisiveness has always seemed to be standard operating procedure for maintaining a power advantage. Does a mechanism need to be more developed than that? martin]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:15:56 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009632.html iTunes: or opening commentaries now at: Facebook group: . -------------------------------------------------- Just posted to my radio archive : July 2, 2009 Leo Panitch, author of this cover story inForeign Policy, on why the bourgeoisie is interested in Marx (and, of course, why they should be) * Jackson Lears, author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920, on American regeneration (mainly through violence) after the Civil War it joins: -------- June 25, 2009 Alyssa Katz, author of Our Lot, on the homeownership fetish and the housing bubble/bust * Liza]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:03:02 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009631.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:02:29 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009630.html > On Jul 3, 2009, at 2:38 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > >> [Leopold here describes the sources of the Bush administration's >> participation in the long-term US insistence on control of Mideast >> energy, not for domestic use -- the US still imports only a small]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:14:23 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009629.html The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" ex]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:02:21 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009628.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:01:42 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009627.html [Leopold here describes the sources of the Bush administration's > participation in the long-term US insistence on control of Mideast > energy, not for domestic use -- the US still imports only a small > percentage of the oil used here from the Mideast -- but for > geopolitical advantage. --CGE] No doubt both Chomsky and Bush believe this. But, once again, I'll ask: what is the mechanism of this advantage? How does it work, or would it work? Doug]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:12 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009626.html > Attempts to privatize social security? > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:38:02 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009625.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:22:35 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009624.html Attempts to privatize social security? > Nonstarters. Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:14:22 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009623.html wrote: > From: Shane Mage > > But that's not what Bush did.  His only "right wing" > measure was the tax cut--which was enacted long before > 9/11.  His *political* agenda was in general continuity > with Clinton's (as Obama's is with Bush's).  Bush's > real agenda was a looting operation, primarily by means of > the financial "regulators" and the military > "contractors."  Top understand the Iraq war all you > need to do is "Follow The Money." > > Shane Mage > > > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > > > Herakleitos of Ephesos > > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/m]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:03:46 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009622.html Bush's real agenda was a looting operation, primarily by means of > the financial "regulators" and the military "contractors." Top > understand the Iraq war all you need to do is "Follow The Money." When there has been war in the middle east all of the well-oiled participants are anxious to raise capital for military expenditures. Oil is easy to access. It really doesn't matter who controls it, they want to sell it. Following the money has long term/short term aspects. martin]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:44:35 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009620.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:39:40 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009621.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:48 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009619.html > To sum it up, I think that one of the motivation behind Iraq > invasion was a tactical move to move the domestic political agenda > radically to the right, But that's not what Bush did. His only "right wing" measure was the tax cut--which was enacted long before 9/11. His *political* agenda was in general continuity with Clinton's (as Obama's is with Bush's). Bush's real agenda was a looting operation, primarily by means of the financial "regulators" and the military "contractors." Top understand the Iraq war all you need to do is "Follow The Money." Shane Mage > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:53:12 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009618.html wrote: > > James Mann (Rise of the Vulcans) makes a point that > Iraq was re-fighting the Vietnam war by a bunch Nixon era > hawks who got pushed aside by Kissinger and his approach to > foreign policy.  This explanation sounds > > plausible, because foreign policy is perhaps the only > policy area where > > the administration can pursue a course of action > without Congressional > > meddling.  Sad but true.  > > > I've also heard that it was about the oil, and I agree that > the oil > theory doesn't hold - err, oil. Especially in light of > recent events. > Also, that it was about Hussein-Iraqi threats to begin > selling oil in > Euro units instead of Dollar units, which I've not seen > debunked in > any serious way. But that it was about Nixon era hawks > refighting > Vietnam? If we stipulate that, the next question has to be: > Why. > Because underlying the why, is something like oil, or euros > v dollars, > or etc. Unless it was re]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:05:12 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009617.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:39:54 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009616.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:52:32 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009615.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:39:39 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009614.html wrote: > From: dredmond at efn.org > Subject: [lbo-talk] Obamachev > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org > Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 1:25 AM > General Secretary Obamachev of the > USSA (United States of Securitized > Assets) takes time out of his busy schedule of appointing > Wall Street > apparatchiks to leech a creaking, diseased economy and > cheerleading the > gloriously irresistible march of revolutionary > democratization, a.k.a. the > USSA's eight-year occupation of Afghanistan, to hector > Putin on the eve of > the upcoming meeting with one of the USSA's leading > credit]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:25:26 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009613.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:24:30 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009612.html Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:32:46 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009611.html volunteer army argument. And mind you, that argument (like the oil one) can be true causally even if it's not true factually. Like Hamid Dabashi said in his interview with Doug (paraphrasing Durkheim), If everyone believes something's true, it becomes a social fact that has effects. And Cecil gives no reason to disbelieve that army believing the fragging argument was a major contributor to the initial push towards an "all-volunteer" force. I put "all volunteer" in quotes because it's one of the two greatest euphemisms the 20th century military establishment ever pushed through. Renaming the War department the Defense department was a great one. But ]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:35:03 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009610.html wrote: > From: Matthias Wasser > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] No oil for blood > To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 9:10 PM > I mean ia the brzinzski quote. > Greenspan's opinion might be indicative of how top elites > viewed the situation but it was obviously not of causal > importance. >]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:10:55 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009609.html wrote: > > > I think Alan Greenspan is sort-of out of the loop when it comes to > making foreign policy. Now if Rice had said it, that would be > different. > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Matthias Wasser wrote: > >> From: Matthias Wasser >> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] No oil for blood >> To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" >> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 4:37 PM >> On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Doug >> Henwood >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Lew wrote: >>> >>>> Politicians are often ill-informed, but Alan >> Greenspan admitted that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was >> really aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves. "I >> thought the issue of we]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:54:26 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009608.html wrote: > From: Matthias Wasser > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] No oil for blood > To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 4:37 PM > On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Doug > Henwood > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Lew wrote: > > > >> Politicians are often ill-informed, but Alan > Greenspan admitted that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was > really aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves. "I > thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the > excuse was utterly beside the point", he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2170602,00.html). > > > > Another assertion, quoted from an authority. Could you > explain just how this works? > > When attempti]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:26:54 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009607.html Marv Gandall asks: > >> What extraordinary advantage have US-based oil companies >> obtained as a result of the occupation? > > Just because it didn't work out that way doesn't mean the theory wasn't in > place at the time. You can't say that the Bush administration didn't do > what they did because it didn't work out :-) =========================== I think it was, and evidently remains, a fundamental misunderstanding that the Bush administration was narrowly focused on Iraq and it's oil. It had much larger strategic objectives, as I've previously written - notably, to provide a "demonstration effect" of overwhelming US military power to the rest of the world, particularly to Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, and Cuba. The neocons thought the Clinton administration too soft in it's treatment of America's nettlesome adversaries in the wake of the USSR's collapse, and it came into office pledged to do something about it. Their manifesto, the Project for a New A]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:18:22 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009606.html On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Chris Doss wrote: >> >> A long time. I betcha that has something to do with the dominant culture >> of Iranians. Muslim cultures outside the former USSR where homosexuality >> is legal are pretty rare, including the secular ones. >> >> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Doug Henwood wrote: >> >>> >>> Oh, and you probably noticed that India *overturned* the >>> ban. Any bets on when that might happen in Iran? > > @Doss: It is obvious to me that in this thread, you are obsessed with > picking nits (others share this ignominy). Picking]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:51:45 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009605.html http://67.222.134.214/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-great-burqa-debate-179 > The great burqa debate > By Irfan Husain > Wednesday, 01 Jul, 2009 | 12:56 AM PST > > For the first time in my life, I put on a burqa this morning. Glad it wasn't a tampon. -- Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:18:33 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009604.html wrote: > > Greetings all! > > Happy Independence Day weekend! > > In the name of putting my theory where my praxis is - I am running > for Congress in 2010, FL District 24...tell your friends and > neighbors! > > http://intertheory.org/nriiiforcongress2010.html > > ...and an Independence Day gift: > > Bjork - Declare Independence > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igOWR_-BXJU > > pax et lux, > > NRIII > > > Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D > Editor, Kritikos > http://intertheory.org > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:07:26 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009603.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:48:17 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009602.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:37:50 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009601.html wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Lew wrote: > >> Politicians are often ill-informed, but Alan Greenspan admitted >> that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was really aimed at >> protecting Middle East oil reserves. "I thought the issue of >> weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the >> point", he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2170602,00.html >> ). > > Another assertion, quoted from an authority. Could you explain just > how this works? When attempting to explain someone's actions, what they believe to be the case is very often more important than what actually is. Colonialist governments in the 19c thought their expansions would provide wonderful export markets and found themselves disappointed, at least on that front. Of course there may have been other motives floating around the foreign policy establishment, and there were elements that were opposed to it, &c.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:25:38 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090629/009600.html I am guessing...62 years...15 years... > 35 years... 11 years... > state-sponsored sex change ;-). > >        --ravi Let's go with 69 years for more gender-bending. Or will you simply admit to being an unrepentant troll?]]>