On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:59:59PM -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> us. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but our foreign policy ought to be
> made based on what is in our long-term best interest ("our" meaning
> American citizens); realistically, terrorist attacks are a fairly small
> part of that calculation. For example, we could presumably beat China in a
Oh, but our foreign policy is based on "our long term best interest", or so
our minders tell us:
"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present day, has
been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce
everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible, and violently, if
necessary. But the purpose of US foreign policy of domination is not just to
make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our
exploitation of resources." - Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
I'm mostly trying to stay out of this rather than going off on rants, but there's an issue of fact to be dealt with here...
Ramsey Clark is _not_ one of "our minders", stating official policy to the sheeple,
which is what you're implying here. He was at one time, but that was
long, long ago, in a job title far, far away.
For the last umpteen years, he's been a major anti-establishment figure,
beating up on the US government when they do things that are wrong or illegal.
I'm not sure when it was that he rehabilitated himself, probably during the
Nixon administration, and I don't know if he beat up on Jimmy Carter
or only on all the Republicans (+Clinton) since Jimmy.
In any case, what he's saying here is his analysis of US policy,
spoken years after he was out of office, not that it's any the less correct for that.
