Keith,
You have probably forgotten but the “wishy-washy” didn’t
happen.
It’s just another of these things that are repeated until it
becomes true.
I sent the actual transcript to FW a couple of years ago.
In fact, the two were talking about the peace talks that were taking
place between Kuwait, Egypt and Iraq. The Ambassadress -
pointing out that the US
had no say in this matter – wished the talks well (as I remember). I
might be able to find the actual excerpt again.
I think that Saddam invaded two or three weeks later.
Harry
*******************************
Henry
George School
of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA
91042
818 352-4141
*******************************
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith
Hudson
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:56
AM
To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] America's
experiment with communism (ca. 1933-2000)
At 14:05 15/05/2005 -0400, Brad McCormick, Ed.D wrote:
Keith
Hudson wrote:
At 09:51 15/05/2005 -0400, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
wrote:
Here's a story from today's Washington Post, about a
soon to be
vanishing breed of patirotic American: a citizen who did right by his
country and his company and then his country and his company takes care of him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400515.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400515.html?referrer=email&referrer=email>
It's un-American (Social Security and corporate[sic] pensions). It's
going away. America's
experiment with communism [or was it
national socialism???] is ending.
As Condi said, "freedom" does not need to be
imposed on people, because people spontaneously *want* freedom
(freedom from pensions, etc., I presume she was talking
about, although she didn't spell out this detail...) -- although,
as she also said, the United
States does help people
in oppressed nations who are trying to win their freedom.
But not in Uzbekistan
where young people demonstrating for freedom are being slaughtered in their
hundreds by Karimov's Praetorian Guards. Our Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
"deplores" this "clear abuse of human rights" while
American troops sit tight in their huge well-equipped base not very far away.
You bring up an important distinction here:
(1) America
"encourages" freedom fighters: America even gives them aid go dig
themselves
into a deeper hole then they could fund by themselves (printing presses,
radio broadcasts, etc.).
But, when unarmed civilians come to tanks -- excuse me, I meant: when push
comes
to shove, then (2) the United
States *doesn't lift a finger*. This
happened most
famously in Hungary in 1956,
and then again in southern Iraq
in 1991.
Moral? Don't trust America.
I can understand why America
didn't intervene in Hungary
in 1956. It might have provoked a new European war. (The Russians had taken the
initiative only only after our crazy Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, had
invaded Egypt
that year. It's been admitted by some high-up Russians that they probably
wouldn't have invaded Hungary
otherwise.)
As for Iraq
in 1991, well, there were two perfidies there by Bush Senior. Firstly, when the
American Ambassador to Kuwait was asked by Saddam what the American reaction to
his invasion of Kuwait would be she, after consulting Bush Senior, gave such a
wishy-washy answer that Saddam took that to mean permission -- or, at least,
that America wouldn't react forcibly if he did so. Saddam might have been
power-crazy at the time and greedy for oil revenues but he wasn't totally mad.
Secondly, Bush Senior didn't continue to invade Iraq after he'd encouraged the
Shias and Kurds to rise up against Saddam. If he'd taken notice of his State
Department Arabists he'd have known that, if he'd invaded the southern half of Iraq, then the
Shias would have been only too pleased to form a separate government and look
after themselves from then onwards. It might have required American troops
staying there for some years, giving plenty of aid to help the Shias get
started and continuing to hammer Saddam with regular airstrikes against Baghdad
(which almost certainly would have provoked a coup d'etat) but, in all
likelihood 'Shiastan' wouldn't have reverted at that time to a fundamentalist
type of Islam, as is certain now, even if the Shias slaughter every single
Sunni extremist. It would, however, have meant the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia
falling out with America -- but they did that, anyway, about five years ago
when they stopped any more prospecting by American oil companies, leaving that
to the French and the Chinese. It is said that Bush Senior took notice of Colin
Powell's "sound advice" in not going further into Iraq but I
don't believe that. Powell simply showed lack of gumption and initiative -- in
the same way that he failed to have the courage to stop Bush Junior invading Iraq in 2002/3
-- or to resign (and maybe stop Bush that way). Bush Senior and Bush Junior
have both been afraid to tackle the problem of the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia
which was, and still is, the basic one of all the Middle East (and now sending
a stream of SA suicide bombers into Iraq). You could say that Clinton didn't do anything either about SA in the interim
between the Bushes, but at least he didn't land America in the biggest mess it's
ever had sinceVietnam.
Keith
Hudson
--
BACK TO AMERICA"S
EXPERIMENT WITH COMMUNISM:
DIfferent angle: The more I think about it, the more I am fascinated by
this
notion of "America's
experiment with communism". I'm beginning to
see the period from 1950 to 1970 (more or less...)
as, indeed, rather "communistic" in
America.
Surely not as communistic at an anracho-syndicalist
would want: The corporate executives here were no more
"the people's representatives" than the bosses in The Soviet Union.
But I thought of something I've argued previously: Giant corporations
here are no more "private enterprise" than state enterprises
were in The Soviet Union. I define private enterprise as Sam Farmer
trading some grain for Joe Blacksmith to shoe his horse, where
Sam hands Joe the grain looking into Joe's eyes, and Joe
returns Sam's horse looking into Sam's eyes (Would you
disagree, Harry?).
>From the worker's perspective,
he or she was working for a political organ beyond his
control in both the US and
the USSR.
We speak of how the old corporations, like
IBM, GM and [in the Wash. Post asrticle:] Glenn L. Martin,
were "paternalistic". From the worker's perspective, it matters
not one bit whether their social safety net comes from
"a private corporation" or from "the government" -- all
that matters
is that the individual feels SAFE.
So, call it what you want: communism, national socialism, or
fascism or capitalism. The difference which makes a difference is:
If Joe Nobody does his job, does Joe Nobody have to
worry about his current and future life needs and the
life needs of his family and friends being provided for?
The answer today in The United States, as the Washington
Post article reaffirms, is: "YES". *That's* what
communism, national socialism, or
fascism and 1950s American capitalism all had in
common: They answered that question: "no" -- we
will take care of you. And what could be a more
important difference that *that* (at least for *you*,
if you ARE Joe Nobody)?
I'm starting to speculatively see the last decades of the first century of
barbed wire in a new way, as the age of the social safety net.
Them's not the right words in that last sentence, of course.
"Yours in discourse [which tends to be crushed when
a person fears for the satisfaction of their basic life needs]...."
\brad mccormick
Keith
Hudson
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that
they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ <http://www.users.cloud9.net/%7Ebradmcc/>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith
Hudson, Bath,
England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org
<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/>>
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that
they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
