Debate on Barack Obama

Part 1

Part 2


4 Responses to “Debate on Barack Obama”

  1. mad dog Says:

    So what do you think about this guy? I am having a hard deciding whether he is sincere or not.

  2. briankoontz Says:

    He’s a pro-corporate, pro-imperialist candidate, similar to Clinton. He’s the liberal side of the Washington Consensus:

    Neoconservatives: We make our own reality. We get our own way, and anyone who disagrees gets bombed.

    Liberals: We talk with others. We get our own way, and anyone who we’ve failed to negotiate with gets bombed.

    Liberals give other countries the chance to say “We’re your slave”. The difference is that liberals accept subjugation. The Neoconservative goal is perpetual war and subjugation doesn’t work for them. The problem with subjugation is that it doesn’t expend bombs, and hence new bombs can’t be ordered, and hence weapons manufacturers aren’t happy. Reconstruction firms aren’t happy, and that’s who the Neocons are serving (besides oil interests).

    It’s amusing when critics of the Neoconservatives say they “didn’t do their homework” when they went into Iraq and hence botched the war. The whole point was to botch the war… everyone knew Saddam’s military was a joke – the only way to extend the war was to botch it.

    Also – the international community as well as Americans themselves aren’t going to accept enslavement of the entire Middle East. Not only is winning war unprofitable but it’s a bad political move – just check out the debacle in Palestine for a case study. That was the original perpetual war which probably gave the idea to the Neocons in the first place. Rather than win the war, which is easy, they merely subjugate the people, and allow them enough power to put up a weak fight (hyping any “suicide bombers” who kill a few people), which justifies a permanently large military budget the profits of which flow into the same elite that controls both those firms and the government.

    I’m not sure why people are so slow to grasp the concept that war is no longer about winning, at least within the Neocon framework for Empire. Nobody is talking about this.

    Look at this another way. The Roman model was to win the war, enslave the conquered, and move to the next victim. People still have the Roman model of war in mind when they think of Imperial war, but it’s wrong. What’s happening now is the people are subjugated (a kind of semi-enslavement where they are “free” to be impoverished and controlled but don’t have to be cared for like if they were enslaved), and they move to the next victim *while* they still “fight” the previous victim. “Critics” say “Why are we thinking about attacking Iran while we are still in Iraq?”. They don’t understand… *that’s the whole idea*.

    It’s no longer just about expanding the empire, it’s about expanding the scope of conflict. The endgame hoped-for by the Neocons is a world of many conflicts, all of which are funded by the taxpayers of many nations (subjugated America is only the first victim in that regard) who not only pay in wealth but pay in blood, since they are also the soldiers.

    When George W. Bush talks about “avoiding World War III” he really means it. He wants to avoid any large catastrophic wars because they risk profits. Nuclear annihilation is a major danger still, but not because the Neocons want it. Nuclear annihilation is tremendously unprofitable.

    All of this is an economic game of sorts, where the taxpayers of the world (normal people) are manipulated, coerced, and made fearful about various “enemies” to justify additional money transferred from them to the elites.

    That’s another thing that differs from the Roman model. Romans cared about glory, domination, and conquest for the sake of power and personal exhaltation, not just wealth. That was why they wanted to always conquer their victims rather than put them through this semi-enslavement.

    It’s all about control (which directs where the money goes). The world is not going to be free until we destroy the elite, their institutions, and take power for ourselves.

  3. mad dog Says:

    Would you be willing to join a forum and discuss these things? A forum that I used to go to on a regular basis, but haven’t been there for some time, but plan a drastic return.

  4. briankoontz Says:

    No. I’ve done that for about a decade (1997 to 2006, though only from 2003/2004 with a specifically political focus). Although I’m still highly critical of the American people, they have come a long long way in that decade in terms of their awareness, and I’ve played my small role in that event. I’m ready to move on and the American people are ready to move on. The kind of groups I want to join at the moment are educational groups and groups that effectively fight such things as the American empire (the former increases the number of the latter).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: