Predator
drone bombing in Pakistan is merely one more campaign of U.S. terror
against a poor country's population - hardly anything out of the
ordinary. That is surely one reason for such light protest from the progressive sector.
But there are obviously other reasons in play. Though sentiments for giving Obama some time to be good, and cutting him some slack for his crimes thus far is finally diminishing, therefore tarnishing the sanitizing image of a nonwhite President of the American empire abroad and at home, the widespread belief among liberals that a Republican president would be an even more dangerous war hawk prevails.
However, a look at history shows that conservative political power has, until the recent phenomenon of an oil based GOP, had its strength based on ownership of land, and it has been the nouveau riche liberal capitalist political power of developing industry that has profited more from war and war's destructive economic motor.
Democratic President Wilson was able to overcome conservative opposition to have the nation enter World War I and Hitler's rearmament was financed during the Democrat administrations of FDR.
By the time of the war on
Vietnam, Republican Party leadership had pulled abreast that of the
Democrats as war promoters. Six presidents crucified the population of
France's Indochinese colonies, three Democrats and three Republicans.
Would a McCain-led Republican administration be bombing more than the Obama Democratic led government is? In spite of enjoying his hero status, McCain, as president, would have had the uncomfortable memory of bringing death and destruction when bombing Hanoi following orders as a young and only lightly educated man trying to prove his worth as the son and grandson of the high military command.
A well educated politically experienced Democratic president has ordered the ongoing taking of thousands of lives internationally in the name of permanent protective war. Yet, with the Bush presidency not forgotten, thankfulness for a less-to-be-feared Obama election victory has not quite abated among peace activists though an enhanced continuance of the Bush era military program has become apparent.
And the 2008 argument that McCain would be terrible and a stand-in for Bush?
True enough it was McCain's jolly "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" play on the lyrics of a popular hit that shook up people for its childishly bizarre attempt at humor, just as voters were once shook by Barry Goldwater's not rejecting the option of atomic bombing North Vietnam, but the victories of their Democrat opponents brought similar indiscriminate use of bombing procedures.
This writer recalls vividly, the equally shocking sight of Obama's hand shooting up in the air quickly in answer to a debate question for all the Democratic candidates, "Raise you hand if you would give the go ahead for a strike to take out an top al Queda operative if you knew there would be civilian casualties." There was no mention of it afterward in any commercial media, and astoundingly it went uncommented upon in an alternate media fixated only on getting a black president elected (which of course is what the war establishment that backed Obama financially also preferred.)
Americans and people around the world are forced to accept the priorities of the empire's financial-industrial-military-complex. Unfortunately, too many accept the fantasy that presidents, elected with the approval of Wall Street, are making their own personal and considered decisions in heeding these priorities.
One day, we will have a president who will not order, or be forced to order, bombings in other countries, because there will be an electorate that has looked to see who and what is behind the Democratic and Republican candidates and rejected them both in favor of its own non-bomber candidate.
But there are obviously other reasons in play. Though sentiments for giving Obama some time to be good, and cutting him some slack for his crimes thus far is finally diminishing, therefore tarnishing the sanitizing image of a nonwhite President of the American empire abroad and at home, the widespread belief among liberals that a Republican president would be an even more dangerous war hawk prevails.
However, a look at history shows that conservative political power has, until the recent phenomenon of an oil based GOP, had its strength based on ownership of land, and it has been the nouveau riche liberal capitalist political power of developing industry that has profited more from war and war's destructive economic motor.
Democratic President Wilson was able to overcome conservative opposition to have the nation enter World War I and Hitler's rearmament was financed during the Democrat administrations of FDR.
Would a McCain-led Republican administration be bombing more than the Obama Democratic led government is? In spite of enjoying his hero status, McCain, as president, would have had the uncomfortable memory of bringing death and destruction when bombing Hanoi following orders as a young and only lightly educated man trying to prove his worth as the son and grandson of the high military command.
A well educated politically experienced Democratic president has ordered the ongoing taking of thousands of lives internationally in the name of permanent protective war. Yet, with the Bush presidency not forgotten, thankfulness for a less-to-be-feared Obama election victory has not quite abated among peace activists though an enhanced continuance of the Bush era military program has become apparent.
And the 2008 argument that McCain would be terrible and a stand-in for Bush?
True enough it was McCain's jolly "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" play on the lyrics of a popular hit that shook up people for its childishly bizarre attempt at humor, just as voters were once shook by Barry Goldwater's not rejecting the option of atomic bombing North Vietnam, but the victories of their Democrat opponents brought similar indiscriminate use of bombing procedures.
This writer recalls vividly, the equally shocking sight of Obama's hand shooting up in the air quickly in answer to a debate question for all the Democratic candidates, "Raise you hand if you would give the go ahead for a strike to take out an top al Queda operative if you knew there would be civilian casualties." There was no mention of it afterward in any commercial media, and astoundingly it went uncommented upon in an alternate media fixated only on getting a black president elected (which of course is what the war establishment that backed Obama financially also preferred.)
Americans and people around the world are forced to accept the priorities of the empire's financial-industrial-military-complex. Unfortunately, too many accept the fantasy that presidents, elected with the approval of Wall Street, are making their own personal and considered decisions in heeding these priorities.
One day, we will have a president who will not order, or be forced to order, bombings in other countries, because there will be an electorate that has looked to see who and what is behind the Democratic and Republican candidates and rejected them both in favor of its own non-bomber candidate.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
