[LAAMN] Power Outages* In Order to Overcome Corruption in Venezuela
Large power outages in 14 states across Venezuela due to sabotage, even in much of Caracas yesterday.Cort In Order to Overcome Corruption in Venezuela Sep 3rd 2013, by Luis Britto García - Aporrea [image: quot;Revolution without corruptionquot; reads this mural in Venezuela] Revolution without corruption reads this mural in Venezuela 1. What to do about corruption? Change the laws? Change the culture? Above all, act. Laws are useless if they aren’t applied, as are values that aren’t instilled. Our penal code typifies a large range of crimes against the public, how about we start applying it? 2. For big things, big solutions. If corruption is overflowing in the institutional mechanisms, it’s imperative to strengthen them. Since half way through the last century, all the Venezuelan presidents have had Extraordinary Powers. According to number 8 of article 236 of the constitution, an enabling law should bestow powers on the elected president in order to legislate by decree, on among other topics, corruption. Shame on those who oppose it. 3. A bad thing that spans all the state powers should be fought by all of them. The legislative power should pass a drastic anti-corruption law. In the same way, it should broaden authorisations and responsibilities against corruption through precise reforms to the Organic Law of National Public Tax Revenue, the Organic Law of General Auditing of the Republic, the Law of Public Administration, the Organic Law of Decentralised Public Administration, the Organic Law of General Prosecution of the Republic, the Organic Law of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic, and the Penal Code, among others. 4. If you plant red tape, you’ll harvest corruption. The situation makes the thief and the red tape the administrator. A harvest of new laws isn’t enough; a pruning of requirements and useless proceedings is required. With the Law for the Simplification of Administrative Procedures at hand, the executive power should start to study the procedures demanded so that each citizen can enjoy their rights, with the aim of speeding-up and eliminating redundant or unnecessary procedures. Real and functional information from the administration should be achieved. No deck chair information, with websites that never open or that go and take a siesta. Even less, pedestrian information that obliges the unhappy citizen to start the procedure on the computer to then conclude it with a manila folder on foot. It wouldn’t hurt to have an office which follows the irresistible growth of some vernacular fortunes and carries out an up-to-date study of the movement of capital from neighbouring countries and its possible legitimisation in our country. 5. The Judicial Power should sentence relentlessly, apply the powers of the judiciary in order to ensure the correct functioning of the judges and tribunals, and suggest the necessary reforms to the legislative, above all to the cautionary measures; a favourite resource of corrupt people and of financial criminals so that they can be let out on bail and flee the country. 6. Corruption in Venezuela has historic roots. Maybe a means of production is nothing more than a means of stabilised corruption. The conquest was a colossal looting operation which used force to appropriate common goods and work for the benefit of a negligible minority. In colonial caste society official posts were sold and their discriminatory stratification was prolonged during the republic, leaving fast wealth as the main resource for social ascent. The oligarchic republic and other systems maintained this unequal distribution of the wealth from larceny. With the explosion of the petroleum and mining based economy, public goods and earnings overtook the private economy, and a batch of newly rich and newly corrupt people came out of the trafficking of concessions and the milking of the state. Efficient judicial and accountable institutional systems to compel faultless management of public things haven’t been created. And even when they exist, they aren’t applied, and that’s why some politicians have indicated that in Venezuela there are no reasons to rob. Just as there is no legal punishment, nor is there a social punishment. The only punishment is the collective one, which ends up consigning the unburied cadaver in the waste dump of history, where the Fourth Republic was brought down, and where we hope that hope doesn’t come to an end. 7. So we end where we should have begun. The most important power is the social one. Corruption will decline when it is loathed instead of celebrated. Grassroots organisations should implement social auditing and monitoring of the fulfilling of tasks by the administration and denounce failures there. The education system should consolidate the values of solidarity, cooperation, and selflessness instead of pillaging. The media should combat the culture of larceny and wealth at any cost. Educational sermons are worth nothing in the presence
[LAAMN] Putin May Agree To Military Operation If Regime Chemical Warfare Proved
Many in Media Miss Putin Shift Away from Assad In a separate analysis, EA's Joanna Paraszczuk evaluates the key point of an interview with Vladimir Putin: the Russian President is backing away from unconditional support of President Assad, saying Moscow might support military intervention if the regime's use of chemical weapons is proved. However, many media outlets have missed the message. For example, The Guardian headlines, Putin Warns West Against Military Actionhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/04/syria-crisis-putin-warns-west-live . The mis-leading emphasis has been fed by the Associated Press, which conducted the interview. In this video extract, Putin's statement that he will not rule out intervention is covered up by the headline, Putin Warns West on Syria Action. http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/syria-feature-putin-may-agree-to-military-operation-if-regime-chemical-warfare-proved/ Syria Feature: Putin May Agree To Military Operation If Regime Chemical Warfare Proved We awake to a surprising headline in Russian state news agency RIA Novostihttp://ria.ru/arab_riot/20130904/960597791.html: Путин: Россия не исключает согласия на военную операцию в Сирии (Putin: Russia Does Not Exclude Agreement To A Military Operation In Syria.) In an interview with AP and Russia's Channel 1 on Tuesday night, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow would not rule out supporting a United Nations Security Council resolution backing military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, if it were proven that Damascus had used chemical weapons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkTrJrw10S4 Even though Putin continued to assert that it was illogical for the Syrian Arab Army to have used chemical weapons, his remarks about Russia's support if chemical weapons use were proven is a sea-change from Moscow's earlier spin on the situation. The interview, conducted at Putin's country residence outside Moscow, was the only one the Russian leader granted before the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg opens Thursday. It is signficant that RIA Novosti -- intended for a domestic audience -- leads with Putin's response to the question whether Moscow would support military action if it were proven that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons: I do not exclude it. The Russian President then said, Only the U.N. Security Council can authorize force against a sovereign state. Any other motives or methods that would justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state are unacceptable and can only be deemed aggression. However, he returned to his statement of possible intervention: *We would be convinced by a deep case study of the issue and by the presence of evidence which would be obvious and which would clearly prove who acted, and what tools were used. After that, we would be ready to act in the strongest and most serious way.* Previously, Moscow's line was that if a chemical weapons attack happened, then Syrian insurgents are to blame. But now RIA Novosti quotes Putin as saying that, as yet, there is no precise evidence about what exactly happened: *We have no evidence about what these chemicals are, it is not known whether it was a chemical weapon, or just some kind of harmful chemical substances, [or] if they were used by the official Syrian government army. * Putin did put up a hurdle to any commitment to proof of Assad's responsibility. He said that videos of the aftermath of the attacks of August 21 do not constitute evidence, and even suggested that Al Qaeda may have faked the images: *The only question is who did what, and who is to blame. These images in themselves do not provide answers to the questions that I've just put. And there is the opinion that these are compiled by those same militants who, as we well know and the U.S. administration admits, are linked to Al Qaeda and who have always been known for their extreme cruelty.* [Editor's note: the ITAR-TASS http://kremlin.ru/news/19143 is more cautious in its framing. Its headline, Владимир Путин: Россия не собирается и не будет ввязываться ни в какие конфликты за рубежом (Vladimir Putin: Russia Is Not Preparing To And Will Not Get Involved In Conflicts Abroad, reiterates that Moscow won't actively back Assad militarily if the U.S. strikes Syria. We have our own understanding about how we are going to act should the situation develop, with the use of force or without. We have our own plans, but it is still too early to talk about this, ITAR-TASS quotes Putin. ITAR-TASS then portrays Putin as pleased with the decision of some countries, particularly Britain, not to back military action, . The State agency quotes: *Quite frankly, I was very surprised, because I thought that in Western society everything is done according to the principles of a certain uniformity, like the decisions taken at Communist Party congresses in the USSR...[however] there are people who value their sovereignty, who analyze
[LAAMN] A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
A US attack on Syria will Prolong the Warhttp://www.juancole.com/2013/09/attack-syria-prolong.html Posted on 09/04/2013 by Juan Cole The struggle in Syria began peacefully in spring of 2011, but after about half a year it turned violent when the regime deployed tanks and other heavy munitions against the protesters. Some of the latter took up weapons and turned to violence in revenge. Thereafter the struggle spiraled into a civil war, in which the regime showed itself perfectly willing to attack civilian city quarters and kill indiscriminately. The struggle has killed over 100,000 persons. As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate. President Obama’s plan to bomb Syria with cruise missiles will do nothing to hasten the end of the conflict. Instead, it will likely prolong it. *It should be remembered that the US couldn’t end the Iraqi civil war despite having over 100,000 boots on the ground in that country. It is highly unlikely that Washington can end this one from 30,000 feet.* The hope for avoiding another decade of killing is that the governmental elite and the rebels get tired of fighting and prove willing to make a deal. It is probably too late for Syria to succeed at the kind of transition achieved in Yemen. There, the president stepped down and his vice president ran for his seat. At the same time, members of the opposition were given seats in the cabinet. That kind of cohabitation with the former enemy is easier if too much blood hasn’t bee shed. The best solution for Syria would be if President Bashar al-Assad steps down and the Baath Party gave up its dictatorial tactics. At the same time, the rebels would have to forewswear al-Qaeda-type extremism. Probably each side would have to feel that they could not gain any substantial benefit from further fighting, for negotiations to have prayer of success. The prospect of a US missile strike is emboldening the rebels. They increasingly hope that the US will come in militarily with them. the rebels don’t look at the proposed US missile strikes as a limited affair or as solely related to chemical weapons use. Aside from al-Qaeda, they see the US as an ally. Thus, they are complaining that Obama’s indecisiveness is emboldening Syrian President al-Assadhttp://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2013/9/833955.html?entry=Syria. The US is now part of their strategic calculations and they see decisive American action as an asset. Obviously, such euphoria at the prospect of US military intervention on the rebel side is incompatible with the kind of “pacted” transition political scientists favor. The rebels will have every incentive to hold out for ever more forceful outside Syria intervention in the coming years. By striking Syria, Obama has all but guaranteed that a negotiated solution becomes impossible for years to come. In the absence of serious negotiations, the civil war will continue and likely get worse. The US should give serious thought to what the likely actual (as opposed to ideal) reaction in Syria will be to the landing of a few cruise missiles. The anti-regime elements will celebrate, convinced that it will all be over quickly if the US gets involved. The last thing they will want will be to negotiate with the regime.
[LAAMN] new david bacon book - the right to stay home
The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration by David Bacon Beacon Press Publication Date: September 10, 2013 Hardcover: 978-0-8070-0161-5; E-book: 978-0-8070-0162-2 More than 25 years since the last major revision of national immigration policy, comprehensive reform is now being debated in Congress. Eleven million undocumented immigrants living and working in the U.S. hope it will lead to legal status, but many fear it will also increase the criminalization of migrant status and vastly expand guest worker contract labor programs. Now, in The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration, investigative reporter David Bacon exposes the way globalization and U.S. policy fuel the forces that drive Mexican migrants across the border. Through painstaking analysis and the voices of migrants themselves, Bacon reveals that the decision to come to the U.S. is rarely voluntary. Instead, the poverty that displaces indigenous communities across Mexico is the brutal consequence of globalization, as local economies crumble from the impact of trade agreements like NAFTA and economic reforms benefitting large corporations. Placing issues of displacement and human rights at the center of the U.S. immigration debate, Bacon examines the ways U.S. policy has criminalized migrants once they've been driven across the border. Bacon scrutinizes one of the most controversial pieces of U.S. immigration policy, vastly expanded in current legislation: guest worker visas. These visas grant the right to stay in the United States while working, but, he shows, lead to a corrupt system of recruitment and low wages, and the massive violation of labor and human rights.. Examining the roots of current systems in the Bracero Program, Bacon explains: No employer brings guest workers into the country to pay more than absolutely necessary. Despite these impacts, though, every major immigration reform bill proposed over the past decade has called for the expansion of guest worker programs-including the legislation currently on the table. The book, however, also documents a reality that Bacon asserts should reframe the immigration debate in the U.S. Indigenous Mexican communities that have been devastated by poverty and forced migration have organized a powerful new movement they call the right to stay home. He traces the development of this movement, which seeks political democracy and economic development, in the states of Oaxaca and Veracruz, and presents the voices of its most eloquent advocates. By looking at the roots of migration, U.S. policy can help to create a viable future in migrant-sending communities, while integrating and protecting the rights of immigrant families in the United States. Bacon investigates a series of factors, generated by increasingly rapid globalization as well as U.S. policy toward immigration and Mexico's economy, that have made it impossible for countless Mexicans to survive at home, including: o Low wages and rural poverty: Bacon explains that high-paying jobs are evaporating across Mexico, replaced by low-paying ones: 95 percent of the jobs created in Mexico in 2010 pay around $10 a day, he notes, and 53 million Mexicans (half of the country's population) lives in poverty. Since 2006, less than one third of those needing work have been able to find it. Bacon explains that waves of Mexico's economic reforms decontrolled prices and ended consumer subsidies, creating favorable conditions for corporate investment but increasing poverty, especially in rural and indigenous communities. o The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Bacon shows that NAFTA, introduced in 1994, crippled Mexico's economic sovereignty and steered its national policy toward export-based economic development, favoring large corporations producing for export. At the same time, massive imports devastated local Mexican economies, especially in farming, displacing millions of people. Since 1994, the number of Mexicans living in the U.S. rose from 4.6 to over 12 million - 11% of its population. o Tilting the Playing Field Against Workers: Industries expanding in Mexico because of NAFTA and corporate economic reforms, especially mining, have created hazardous conditions. One 2006 coal mine explosion in Coahuila killed 65 miners. When copper miners struck against levels of dust that cause silicosis, the Mexican government and one of the world's largest mining companies cooperated to bust their union. The book analyzes three of the sharpest government anti-labor campaigns - the labor law reform, the firing of 44,000 electrical workers, and attacks on the miners. Bacon show that this systematic suppression of labor rights in Mexico is a significant cause of migration to the U.S. Bacon underscores that Mexican migrants, once forced from their native lands, are then
[LAAMN] Re: A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
Before the start of the revolution and now war within many wars, Syria ranked 32nd in oil production and has now dropped many places since. This sound like those who said at the start of the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan ( real US intervention their began in 1978) that it was over oil. In Iraq the big oil contacts are with China and Afghanistan not much is coming out. No, the Syrian revolution began for other reasons and the US, Qatar, the Saudis, Turkey, Iranian, Chinese, French and Russian imperialists and sub imperialist actors on both sides, all have other reasons to co-opt or stop it other than oil. Cort On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Arhata Osho arhataworldfreespe...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Less than 1% of people died from 'gassing' out of over 100,000 killed! Is this about gassing of innocent citizens? [image: *=)) rolling on the floor] Wanta buy a bridge from Brooklyn? Follow the Money! Is it 'green oil' too How's Iraq doing now? Afghanistan? About 'oil'? [image: *8-| rolling eyes]The American citizens finance these wars.[image: *8-} silly] Could that be YOU or people you know? -- *From:* Cort Greene cort.gre...@gmail.com A US attack on Syria will Prolong the Warhttp://www.juancole.com/2013/09/attack-syria-prolong.html Posted on 09/04/2013 by Juan Cole The struggle in Syria began peacefully in spring of 2011, but after about half a year it turned violent when the regime deployed tanks and other heavy munitions against the protesters. Some of the latter took up weapons and turned to violence in revenge. Thereafter the struggle spiraled into a civil war, in which the regime showed itself perfectly willing to attack civilian city quarters and kill indiscriminately. The struggle has killed over 100,000 persons. As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate. President Obama’s plan to bomb Syria with cruise missiles will do nothing to hasten the end of the conflict. Instead, it will likely prolong it. *It should be remembered that the US couldn’t end the Iraqi civil war despite having over 100,000 boots on the ground in that country. It is highly unlikely that Washington can end this one from 30,000 feet.* The hope for avoiding another decade of killing is that the governmental elite and the rebels get tired of fighting and prove willing to make a deal. It is probably too late for Syria to succeed at the kind of transition achieved in Yemen. There, the president stepped down and his vice president ran for his seat. At the same time, members of the opposition were given seats in the cabinet. That kind of cohabitation with the former enemy is easier if too much blood hasn’t bee shed. The best solution for Syria would be if President Bashar al-Assad steps down and the Baath Party gave up its dictatorial tactics. At the same time, the rebels would have to forewswear al-Qaeda-type extremism. Probably each side would have to feel that they could not gain any substantial benefit from further fighting, for negotiations to have prayer of success. The prospect of a US missile strike is emboldening the rebels. They increasingly hope that the US will come in militarily with them. the rebels don’t look at the proposed US missile strikes as a limited affair or as solely related to chemical weapons use. Aside from al-Qaeda, they see the US as an ally. Thus, they are complaining that Obama’s indecisiveness is emboldening Syrian President al-Assadhttp://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2013/9/833955.html?entry=Syria. The US is now part of their strategic calculations and they see decisive American action as an asset. Obviously, such euphoria at the prospect of US military intervention on the rebel side is incompatible with the kind of “pacted” transition political scientists favor. The rebels will have every incentive to hold out for ever more forceful outside Syria intervention in the coming years. By striking Syria, Obama has all but guaranteed that a negotiated solution becomes impossible for years to come. In the absence of serious negotiations, the civil war will continue and likely get worse. The US should give serious thought to what the likely actual (as opposed to ideal) reaction in Syria will be to the landing of a few cruise missiles. The anti-regime elements will celebrate, convinced that it will all be over quickly if the US gets involved. The last thing they will want will be to negotiate with the regime.
Re: [LAAMN] Re: A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
Sorry Cort, but you make this sound like the USA benefits from our wars abroad. Yes, US/England's interference, well actually bloody warfare and practicing genocide on the indigenous populations is more accurate, goes back to the 1970's it goes back to when all other sources of portable energy were wiped out in the early 1900's and Oil was the only method to be used, the West has been in and trying to control those who have the black gold. But you insist there is not a profit motive? The Corporations that help fund political campaigns, whose advertising controls what is actually in our newspapers to the point we have to to to N Korean news to find something worse, are the beneficiaries. Those who profit from the major user of Oil, the Military Industrial Complex uses 40% of the world supply of Oil. As Arhata stated, follow the money. Who profits. When the worlds economies and the countries themselves are controlled by those who control the worlds economies, they are the beneficiaries. A lull in the oil supply, a lull in the food supply, the foreign nationals that now own 40% of the NATURAL WATER SUPPLIES in the USA can state scarcity and jack prices. The only real money makers left in the USA has to do with GMO's and chemicals, destroying food production around the world, making scarcities while controlling the only viable food supplies left, as well as Weapons Manufacturing. 12 years ago 40% of US jobs centered around the Military Industrial Complex. Damn, war is just good business, you don't want to see a massive depression instead of this little one we're living in now do ya? After all, what other jobs would we have to support our economy? So why rule out profit by Oil, as you insist on doing in every instance of the Middle East? The Oil Corporations based in the US and the UK profit immensely, the players that are religiously polarized in this region are the other players, and duh, they have immense amounts of oil too. Syria blocks natural gas lines form Saudi Arabia to European supply depots. Syria blocks sending water from Iraq and Turkey to Israel. Syria's majority of the population is that of Iran's population too, and those against them have committed the greatest crimes against humanity, using Chemical warfare (Iraq using US supplied WMD's on Iranian's and Kurds, Israel on Palestinians). Empowering all factions that are pro invading Syria, by fighting anyone who mentions profit motive, or anything about the major chemical warfare known criminals and their parts in Syria, seems to be a constant theme coming out of your Marxist group. Stating your for the people is consistent, but empowering the Imperialists to invade seems to be the end result that these actions will achieve. Any discussion, or will I get another personal post instead of sticking to the subject of, who profits. Scott Before the start of the revolution and now war within many wars, Syria ranked 32nd in oil production and has now dropped many places since. This sound like those who said at the start of the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan ( real US intervention their began in 1978) that it was over oil. In Iraq the big oil contacts are with China and Afghanistan not much is coming out. No, the Syrian revolution began for other reasons and the US, Qatar, the Saudis, Turkey, Iranian, Chinese, French and Russian imperialists and sub imperialist actors on both sides, all have other reasons to co-opt or stop it other than oil. Cort On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Arhata Osho arhataworldfreespe...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Less than 1% of people died from 'gassing' out of over 100,000 killed! Is this about gassing of innocent citizens? [image: *=)) rolling on the floor] Wanta buy a bridge from Brooklyn? Follow the Money! Is it 'green oil' too How's Iraq doing now? Afghanistan? About 'oil'? [image: *8-| rolling eyes]The American citizens finance these wars.[image: *8-} silly] Could that be YOU or people you know? -- *From:* Cort Greene cort.gre...@gmail.com A US attack on Syria will Prolong the Warhttp://www.juancole.com/2013/09/attack-syria-prolong.html Posted on 09/04/2013 by Juan Cole The struggle in Syria began peacefully in spring of 2011, but after about half a year it turned violent when the regime deployed tanks and other heavy munitions against the protesters. Some of the latter took up weapons and turned to violence in revenge. Thereafter the struggle spiraled into a civil war, in which the regime showed itself perfectly willing to attack civilian city quarters and kill indiscriminately. The struggle has killed over 100,000 persons. As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate. President Obamas plan to bomb Syria with cruise missiles will do nothing to hasten the end of the conflict.
Re: [LAAMN] Re: A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
Scott So you are saying Russian, Chinese and Iranian imperialism( arms, loans, training, banking, intel and capitalist ventures and in the case of Iran boots on the ground with Quds Force, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah and 4 Shiite groups from Iraq)) does not also profit from the Syrian conflict. And I am not a supporting of any of the imperialist and sub imperialist groupings. I am a Marxist. Not some Stalinist, right wing or fascist and liberal or a so called progressive who supports the Assad regime thinking they are anti imperialist. Cort On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM, scotpe...@cruzio.com wrote: Sorry Cort, but you make this sound like the USA benefits from our wars abroad. Yes, US/England's interference, well actually bloody warfare and practicing genocide on the indigenous populations is more accurate, goes back to the 1970's it goes back to when all other sources of portable energy were wiped out in the early 1900's and Oil was the only method to be used, the West has been in and trying to control those who have the black gold. But you insist there is not a profit motive? The Corporations that help fund political campaigns, whose advertising controls what is actually in our newspapers to the point we have to to to N Korean news to find something worse, are the beneficiaries. Those who profit from the major user of Oil, the Military Industrial Complex uses 40% of the world supply of Oil. As Arhata stated, follow the money. Who profits. When the worlds economies and the countries themselves are controlled by those who control the worlds economies, they are the beneficiaries. A lull in the oil supply, a lull in the food supply, the foreign nationals that now own 40% of the NATURAL WATER SUPPLIES in the USA can state scarcity and jack prices. The only real money makers left in the USA has to do with GMO's and chemicals, destroying food production around the world, making scarcities while controlling the only viable food supplies left, as well as Weapons Manufacturing. 12 years ago 40% of US jobs centered around the Military Industrial Complex. Damn, war is just good business, you don't want to see a massive depression instead of this little one we're living in now do ya? After all, what other jobs would we have to support our economy? So why rule out profit by Oil, as you insist on doing in every instance of the Middle East? The Oil Corporations based in the US and the UK profit immensely, the players that are religiously polarized in this region are the other players, and duh, they have immense amounts of oil too. Syria blocks natural gas lines form Saudi Arabia to European supply depots. Syria blocks sending water from Iraq and Turkey to Israel. Syria's majority of the population is that of Iran's population too, and those against them have committed the greatest crimes against humanity, using Chemical warfare (Iraq using US supplied WMD's on Iranian's and Kurds, Israel on Palestinians). Empowering all factions that are pro invading Syria, by fighting anyone who mentions profit motive, or anything about the major chemical warfare known criminals and their parts in Syria, seems to be a constant theme coming out of your Marxist group. Stating your for the people is consistent, but empowering the Imperialists to invade seems to be the end result that these actions will achieve. Any discussion, or will I get another personal post instead of sticking to the subject of, who profits. Scott Before the start of the revolution and now war within many wars, Syria ranked 32nd in oil production and has now dropped many places since. This sound like those who said at the start of the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan ( real US intervention their began in 1978) that it was over oil. In Iraq the big oil contacts are with China and Afghanistan not much is coming out. No, the Syrian revolution began for other reasons and the US, Qatar, the Saudis, Turkey, Iranian, Chinese, French and Russian imperialists and sub imperialist actors on both sides, all have other reasons to co-opt or stop it other than oil. Cort On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Arhata Osho arhataworldfreespe...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Less than 1% of people died from 'gassing' out of over 100,000 killed! Is this about gassing of innocent citizens? [image: *=)) rolling on the floor] Wanta buy a bridge from Brooklyn? Follow the Money! Is it 'green oil' too How's Iraq doing now? Afghanistan? About 'oil'? [image: *8-| rolling eyes]The American citizens finance these wars.[image: *8-} silly] Could that be YOU or people you know? -- *From:* Cort Greene cort.gre...@gmail.com A US attack on Syria will Prolong the Warhttp://www.juancole.com/2013/09/attack-syria-prolong.html Posted on 09/04/2013 by Juan Cole The struggle in Syria began peacefully in spring of 2011, but after about
[LAAMN] The Syrian Revolution and foreign interventions
http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-syrian-revolution-and-foreign-interventions/#more-4396 September 4, 2013http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-syrian-revolution-and-foreign-interventions/ The Syrian Revolution and foreign interventions [image: Image]http://syriafreedomforever.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/1185270_394365137353145_1041621419_n.jpg Syrian Revolutionary Youth in Homs in a demonstration on September 3 2013: “Obama’s and others’ statements do not matter to us. We started our revolution, and we will be the ones to finish it. Our unity is stronger than any foreign strike.” ‘The West’s war will weaken Syria’s revolution’ article first published in http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/34270/ ‘The+West’s+war+will+weaken+Syrias+revolution’ *Western intervention will either strengthen Assad’s grip or destroy the gains of the Syrian revolt, says Lebanese socialist Bassem Chit* Since news broke of a possible US strike on Syria the overwhelming mood in the region has been an escalation of fear. Thousands of Syrians fled towards the Lebanese border, while in Lebanon people were preparing for the worst. The vision of a US strike on Syria as a liberatory breath probably only occurred to a tiny minority of people. It could only appeal to people who can easily escape the repercussions or who are so desperate that they welcome any change. First an attack will be disastrous for the people of Syria. It undermines the development of the revolution that offers real hope. There is no such thing as a “surgical strike”. The US administration’s claim that it will punish the regime without also hurting millions of people in Syria and across the region is a fiction. In reality a US strike is most likely to strengthen Assad. Alternatively, if the West is determined to bring him down, it will have to destroy most of Syria. In the first scenario, Assad would be able to continue his murderous actions against the Syrian population while posing as an anti-imperialist hero. This would further isolate the Syrian Revolution. Already some people who supported the revolution are turning back to the regime under the pretext that it must be defended from the US. We have seen what it means when the US decides to “depose a dictator” in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Libya. Even if the Americans succeed, they will also have destroyed all the structures and the networks built by the Syrian revolutionaries during their struggle against the regime. All the experience of self-organisation, all the democratic processes put in place by the active masses, all the political developments within them—all of these will be destroyed. That will leave an empty space for opportunist forces, the proxies of Al Qaida and the regressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to take on the leading role. In both scenarios, the US attack will first and foremost damage the Syrian Revolution. Moreover it will be a pretext for the regime’s allies in the region to rescue it by widening the circle of war. Lebanon’s leaders could submerge it in yet another war to escape the rising popular resentment against Hizbollah sending fighters to bolster Assad in Syria. It would silence local support for the Syrian Revolution under the slogan of “national discipline” against imperialism. Already the violence is spreading. Just last week Lebanon witnessed car bombs in densely populated neighbourhoods of both Beirut and Tripoli. The idea that revolutions are won by some swift action that disposes of a regime and builds another, is a fiction. Regimes are not simply structures balanced somewhere in some capital, that can be simply got rid of or taken over. They are a complex web of relations of interests among those on the top of society. They continuously adapt their roles and the agencies of economy and thought and politics to benefit changing situations. And they have the money and the knowledge to do so. That is why revolutions are not about simply deposing a dictator or a military council or a corrupt president, however integral and necessary those actions may be. They are also about sparking a process of mass transformation and of self-education and confidence within the masses. This develops through their continuous movement and struggle for change. It emerges from the factory of ideas set up by the revolutionary process, as alternative structures and agencies of resistance and of self-organisation are erected. In time this process forms the dual power that can truly defy the existing order. That is when the system can be brought down to open the space for a true mass transformation of society towards a better future. These processes must take place, even with dangerous setbacks. As has happened in Egypt such setbacks can be an important space to polarise people to a revolutionary position. They can filter out those elements who are willing to compromise with the ruling order at the first opportunity. Moreover,
[LAAMN] MUST READ: Fukushima greatest threat/fissioning (2 articles)
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_02/Fukushima-radioactive-leak-is-the-greatest-threat-humanity-ever-faced-expert-3792/ http://rt.com/op-edge/fukushima-radiation-threat-level-288/#.UiTeqszSuNs.twitter
[LAAMN] Cindy Sheehan, PF Gubinatorial Candidate KPFA Interview
Cindy Sheehan on Prisoner hunger strike, environment and nukes, education and more. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_7ZbaZ1RvM
Re: [LAAMN] Re: A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
Yes, I noted your a Marxist. I may have wrongly slandered someone else whom I thought was a Socialist, they used the same sources and the same tactics with anyone who tried to have a discussion about data other then your emotionally packed has to be true Assad did it, cause your sources supported the same things the MSM did, which was the desires of Obama and the MIC. I now know more about your philosophy from the posted about Syria then I knew before, and I'm sad to say I'm not any more endeared form you then the Socialists that insisted on posting uncertain details as hard facts whose only purpose can be to sanction the US killing more Syrians, because Obama said, use gas and I'll bomb you, so gas was used. Oh yes, it has to be Assad, no other discussion allowed. Sorry, this only means I have to fact check everything you post just as if it was the MSM, as the agenda of the MSM/MIC was identical to what your Marxists Groups were achieving. Seriously, I thought if either you or the Socialists who posted the same exact things you did, who use the same tactics in replying to those who present other views or want a discussion about the oddities and uncertainties being listed as positive known facts, that you were the type that would go Huh? Our actions are supporting Western Imperialism in this case? Could we not have all the data or has someone got us on a leash and we didn't notice? Nope... not a hint of that. I know that scenario, I've used sources that I thought were trusted, and didn't vet the information personally to find out I was used to disseminate emotionally charged Imperialist Propaganda. BTW, the subject was, has been and still is, the posts that claim immediately and for certain that Assad is the only possible chance anyone did exactly as Obama desired so he could appease his psycho masters and run up another war profiting account for them. You asked why would the US or anyone else want to use chemical weapons, people told you, and you reacted at them, there was no discussion about what was sent to you, only defense of a solid view that cannot be wrong and no additional data can ever be looked at and attacks on anyone that might point out why Assad would be insane to do as Obama wanted so he'd have a justification to bomb more civilians, ANYWHERE. It's back to the old, it's what is done, what is accomplished not what is said, that defines the charterer of the person. I really had hoped you'd seen you were selling what Obama wanted and might take another look. Oh well, at least I know where you stand too when the emotionally charged propaganda comes from a source you repeat and defend, while not being able to have a conversation about the data. Scott Scott So you are saying Russian, Chinese and Iranian imperialism( arms, loans, training, banking, intel and capitalist ventures and in the case of Iran boots on the ground with Quds Force, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah and 4 Shiite groups from Iraq)) does not also profit from the Syrian conflict. And I am not a supporting of any of the imperialist and sub imperialist groupings. I am a Marxist. Not some Stalinist, right wing or fascist and liberal or a so called progressive who supports the Assad regime thinking they are anti imperialist. Cort On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:17 PM, scotpe...@cruzio.com wrote: Sorry Cort, but you make this sound like the USA benefits from our wars abroad. Yes, US/England's interference, well actually bloody warfare and practicing genocide on the indigenous populations is more accurate, goes back to the 1970's it goes back to when all other sources of portable energy were wiped out in the early 1900's and Oil was the only method to be used, the West has been in and trying to control those who have the black gold. But you insist there is not a profit motive? The Corporations that help fund political campaigns, whose advertising controls what is actually in our newspapers to the point we have to to to N Korean news to find something worse, are the beneficiaries. Those who profit from the major user of Oil, the Military Industrial Complex uses 40% of the world supply of Oil. As Arhata stated, follow the money. Who profits. When the worlds economies and the countries themselves are controlled by those who control the worlds economies, they are the beneficiaries. A lull in the oil supply, a lull in the food supply, the foreign nationals that now own 40% of the NATURAL WATER SUPPLIES in the USA can state scarcity and jack prices. The only real money makers left in the USA has to do with GMO's and chemicals, destroying food production around the world, making scarcities while controlling the only viable food supplies left, as well as Weapons Manufacturing. 12 years ago 40% of US jobs centered around the Military Industrial Complex. Damn, war is just good business, you don't want to see a massive depression instead of this little one we're living in now do
