Romney Will 'Respect' Israel Strke Aagainst Iran [Archive]

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 15:38

Don't know how the American population feels, but it seems they have a short learning curve anyway so i think Romney might actually win.

Possibly, but I wouldn't sell the American public short.

I've noticed that many people who live in other countries have a low opinion of American people.

This is as regrettable as it is mistaken. I can only blame it on the image that most of our reactionary politicians project throughout the world.

But, contrary to this common misconception, Americans are very sophisticated politically and otherwise.

One way to confirm this is by looking at the political humor of comedians in the so-called left: Stephen Colbert, John Stewart and Bill Maher are three of the best examples.

Comrade Samuel

29th July 2012, 15:43

Don't know how the American population feels, but it seems they have a short learning curve anyway so i think Romney might actually win.

Personally I have my doubts, there seems that there are two types of people: one who will vote democrat or republican year after year no matter what because they think their loyalty to a party signifies something other than dogmatism and ignorance but on the other hand there is the far larger group who is fed up with both candidates/parties but will vote for Obama because they think its the lesser of two evils. (which Book o' Dead falls in)

I believe we should distance ourselfves from both, In essence they are the same canidate with the exact same interests: not ours. Does anyone honestly belive either candidate would just back away slowly if Israel took action against Iran and started a global conflict? No; if there is any difference between them on the matter it's probably that Romney would be more apt to a premptive strike whereas Obama would at the very least wait for diplomacy to fail. Either way the workers are hurt equally so why even bother with bourgeois elections?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 15:52

Personally I have my doubts, there seems that there are two types of people: one who will vote democrat or republican year after year no matter what because they think their loyalty to a party signifies something other than dogmatism and ignorance but on the other hand there is the far larger group who is fed up with both candidates/parties but will vote for Obama because they think its the lesser of two evils. (which Book o' Dead falls in)

I believe we should distance ourselfves from both, In essence they are the same canidate with the exact same interests: not ours. Does anyone honestly belive either candidate would just back away slowly if Israel took action against Iran and started a global conflict? No; if there is any difference between them on the matter it's probably that Romney would be more apt to a premptive strike whereas Obama would at the very least wait for diplomacy to fail. Either way the workers are hurt equally so why even bother with bourgeois elections?

Up until recently I shared your POV, but the eight years of Bush/Cheney and the election of Barack Obama forced me to reevaluate my attitude regarding U.S. presidential elections.

Comrade Samuel

29th July 2012, 16:01

Up until recently I shared your POV, but the eight years of Bush/Cheney and the election of Barack Obama forced me to reevaluate my attitude regarding U.S. presidential elections.

At the risk of getting off topic what changed? How would another term with Obama be better for the working class than it would be under Romney? I see nothing good coming from either, merely different means of achieving the same goals.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 16:16

At the risk of getting off topic what changed? How would another term with Obama be better for the working class than it would be under Romney? I see nothing good coming from either, merely different means of achieving the same goals.

I'm not a believer in the notion that our class has to suffer more privation in order to make it see the need for revolution, which is what Romney will bring if elected. Privation and misery do not necessarily lead to class consciousness or refine the class struggle.

Also, I am mindful of the historical fact that wars have for years been the best way to distract the American working class [] from it's real enemy.

Obama, has tried to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and should be commended for it because this is giving the American proletariat and opportunity to do some serious introspection.

I believe that the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon, aimed at the financial sector of U.S. capitalism, in the midst of two foreign wars, attests to the existence of a breathing space, unwittingly created by the election of Barack Obama.

I think that a Romney administration will move quickly to close any breathing space for us to move without having to break the law; they will force us to move into illegalism. I do not want that.

Krano

29th July 2012, 17:05

I'm not a believer in the notion that our class has to suffer more privation in order to make it see the need for revolution, which is what Romney will bring if elected. Privation and misery do not necessarily lead to class consciousness or refine the class struggle.

Also, I am mindful of the historical fact that wars have for years been the best way to distract the American working class [] from it's real enemy.

Obama, has tried to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and should be commended for it because this is giving the American proletariat and opportunity to do some serious introspection.

I believe that the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon, aimed at the financial sector of U.S. capitalism, in the midst of two foreign wars, attests to the existence of a breathing space, unwittingly created by the election of Barack Obama.

I think that a Romney administration will move quickly to close any breathing space for us to move without having to break the law; they will force us to move into illegalism. I do not want that.
Alright first of all US troops will stay in Afghanistan untill 2024 thanks to Obama and he left Iraq because the countries natural resources were already taken so there was no need to stay anymore. Second of all there were protests under Bush that were crushed the same way that OWS was crushed under Obama, remember the GDR? people weren't even allowed to publicly gather, but that didn't stop people from rebelling against the state when the time was right.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 17:13

Alright first of all US troops will stay in Afghanistan untill 2024 thanks to Obama and he left Iraq because the countries natural resources were already taken so there was no need to stay anymore. Second of all there were protests under Bush that were crushed the same way that OWS was crushed under Obama, remember the GDR? people weren't even allowed to publicly gather, but that didn't stop people from rebelling against the state when the time was right.

You make it sound as if a war, once entered into, can be ended by presidential fiat. This is not a realistic expectation.

OWS is was not "crushed", it withered away because of its misdirected efforts.

I think that you're placing too much of the onus of what is happening on Obama and not enough on the previous governments.

Krano

29th July 2012, 17:18

You make it sound as if a war, once entered into, can be ended by presidential fiat. This is not a realistic expectation.

OWS is was not "crushed", it withered away because of its misdirected efforts.

I think that you're placing too much of the onus of what is happening on Obama and not enough on the previous governments.
Blaming Bush for current problems doesn't work anymore, Obama has been in office for 4 years now if he wanted to he could have ended the Afghanistan war already. Bush was terrible, but he still got everything he wanted done.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 17:25

Blaming Bush for current problems doesn't work anymore, Obama has been in office for 4 years now if he wanted to he could have ended the Afghanistan war already. Bush was terrible, but he still got everything he wanted done.

What you say is incorrect. The problems that the Bush administration left behind cannot be solved in 3-1/2 years which is what Obama has had in office.

What you suggest is equivalent to a political magic wand and sounds disturbingly similar to the rhetoric of the American far-right.

Krano

29th July 2012, 17:55

What you say is incorrect. The problems that the Bush administration left behind cannot be solved in 3-1/2 years which is what Obama has had in office.

What you suggest is equivalent to a political magic wand and sounds disturbingly similar to the rhetoric of the American far-right.
If Romney is elected and can't fix anything will you blame Obama? I didn't think so, this is why Liberalism doesn't work it's not progressive at all. You can't fix anything with Liberal democracy because the next person that takes office can undo all those fixes anyway.

Le Socialiste

29th July 2012, 17:57

What you say is incorrect. The problems that the Bush administration left behind cannot be solved in 3-1/2 years which is what Obama has had in office.

Assuming Obama had any intention of "solving" anything. :rolleyes:

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 18:06

Assuming Obama had any intention of "solving" anything. :rolleyes:

You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that he does.

Le Socialiste

29th July 2012, 18:11

You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that he does.

Not quite.

What did Obama solve O'Dead? God knows where we'd be without NDAA, H.R. 347, "Obamacare," and intervention (read: regime change) in North Africa.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 18:25

Not quite.

What did Obama solve O'Dead? God knows where we'd be without NDAA, H.R. 347, "Obamacare," and intervention (read: regime change) in North Africa.

What sort of sleight of hand is it that speaks of "intentions" on one post and demands "results" in the other?

Think about it "Socialiste".

Le Socialiste

29th July 2012, 18:39

What sort of sleight of hand is it that speaks of "intentions" on one post and demands "results" in the other?

Because, according to you, there were results. I'd just love to hear what you think those are.

Or you could continue skirting around the issue...

Ocean Seal

29th July 2012, 18:43

A Romney administration will plunge the U.S deeper into war by allowing Israel to act unilaterally in the region.

This is consistent with the Bush/Cheney/Obama doctrine that prevailed for nearly 12 years.

Who wants to keep that up?
Fix'd

RedHammer

29th July 2012, 18:44

Obama is negligibly better than Romeny. Hell, not even that.

Regarding Romney's attitude towards Israel, is anybody surprised? Foreign policy in the United States is dictated by Israel.

piet11111

29th July 2012, 19:01

Obama has not even closed guantanamo bay openly boasts about being involved in the drone killing program and has made the killing of americans a presidential right without due process or any kind of judicial oversight.

The amount of war crimes Obama is guilty off make Bush look like a school boy.

Luka

29th July 2012, 19:07

Romney Will 'Respect' Israel Strke Aagainst Iran
That's pretty much the only thing I like about Romney.

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 19:07

Aren't people who argue for supporting bourgeois politicians automatically restricted? What's taking so long to corral Book O Dead?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:13

Fix'd

That's not precisely the most honest thing to do.

Try to formulate a reasoned argument in favor or against a POV instead of falsifying other people's words.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:14

Aren't people who argue for supporting bourgeois politicians automatically restricted? What's taking so long to corral Book O Dead?

Calls for repression of this sort are more typical of bourgeois-minded people than of working class revolutionaries.

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 19:19

Calls for repression of this sort are more typical of bourgeois-minded people than of working class revolutionaries.

What's repressive is to take the one message forum where revolutionaries can try to find some sort of reprieve from the constant and mindless lesser-of-two-evils prattle, and infect it with more of the same garbage. This is why it's the policy of this forum to restrict people like you to OI. If you want to spread your love for Obama, try the millions of liberal web sites out there where you can commiserate with your fellow Obama supporters about how terrible Romney would be. Those forums aren't difficult to find.

You act like you're spreading a message here we haven't heard before. We have. We disagree with it, and it so saturates public thinking on this issue we're quite frankly tired of hearing it. You're not going to change any of our minds here by repeating the same arguments we've heard over and over and over again, and rejected for very good reasons. All you're going to do is annoy us. A lot. Now go away. Thanks.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:20

Because, according to you, there were results. I'd just love to hear what you think those are.

Or you could continue skirting around the issue...

You cannot arbitrarily change the rules of debate and expect me to go along with them.

You asked what I thought about Obama's intentions. I answered.

You attempted to twist that into an argument about what he has accomplished. That's not fair.

The discussion here, as exemplified in the OP, is about Mitt Romney's support for Israel and his stated intention to support their unilateral military attack on Iran.

Stick to that and we may reach a mutually satisfying consensus of opinion.

RedHammer

29th July 2012, 19:21

I agree, this forum is about discussing radical left politics, not Obama vs Romney. There's enough of that already.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:22

What's repressive is to take the one message forum where revolutionaries can try to find some sort of reprieve from the constant and mindless lesser-of-two-evils prattle, and infect it with more of the same garbage. This is why it's the policy of this forum to restrict people like you to OI. If you want to spread your love for Obama, try the millions of liberal web sites out there where you can commiserate with your fellow Obama supporters about how terrible Romney would be. Those forums aren't difficult to find.

You act like you're spreading a message here we haven't heard before. We have. We disagree with it, and it so saturates public thinking on this issue we're quite frankly tired of hearing it. Now go away. Thanks.

Please, let's avoid unwarranted personal attacks and let's stick to the topic at hand, okay?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:24

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 19:25

Please, let's avoid unwarranted personal attacks and let's stick to the topic at hand, okay?

Who's attacking you personally? For all I know you might be a nice person. You're just violating the forum rules, and pretending that those rules -- which are perfectly reasonable -- are some repressive conspiracy against the truth. Get over yourself, man. Feel free to keep spreading this pro-Obama nonsense, but if you do, prepare to be restricted.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:31

Who's attacking you personally? For all I know you might be a nice person. You're just violating the forum rules, and pretending that those rules -- which are perfectly reasonable -- are some repressive conspiracy against the truth. Get over yourself, man. Feel free to keep spreading this pro-Obama nonsense, but if you do, prepare to be restricted.

Don't be disingenuous. Your calls for restricting me is an attempt to silence my legitimate dissent by threats.

I am not breaking any rules by setting up a comparison between one capitalist politician and another. This is something that happens in this forum quite frequently.

If all you want is a uniformity of opinion in this forum then you are more akin to Romney and his ideology than even you suspect.

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 19:37

Don't be disingenuous. Your calls for restricting me is an attempt to silence my legitimate dissent by threats.

I am not breaking any rules by setting up a comparison between one capitalist politician and another. This is something that happens in this forum quite frequently.

If all you want is a uniformity of opinion in this forum then you are more akin to Romney and his ideology than even you suspect.

Stop playing the victim. Calling for the forum rules to be enforced is not a personal attack against you. Nobody is asking for uniformity of opinion. We're asking for one space on the entire Internet where we can go and chat with like-minded revolutionaries without having to confront the "if you don't vote for Obama, you're supporting Romney's polygamy!" nonsense.

You apparently think that we revolutionaries aren't even entitled to a single space for communicating on the web when you liberals have millions. How repressive is that, Mr. Victim?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:44

Stop playing the victim. Calling for the forum rules to be enforced is not a personal attack against you. Nobody is asking for uniformity of opinion. We're asking for one space on the entire Internet where we can go and chat with like-minded revolutionaries without having to confront the "if you don't vote for Obama, you're supporting Romney's polygamy!" nonsense.

You apparently think that we revolutionaries aren't even entitled to a single space for communicating on the web when you liberals have millions. How repressive is that, Mr. Victim?

If I am restricted I will have been victimized by your obsessive fear of dissent.

And, anyway, It seems that I am the only one arguing in favor of my views. How can that constitute an invasion of your sacred space "where we can go and chat with like-minded revolutionaries"?

Try not to be so territorial it's unbecoming of enlightened people.

Le Socialiste

29th July 2012, 19:46

You cannot arbitrarily change the rules of debate and expect me to go along with them.

Please. :rolleyes:

You asked what I thought about Obama's intentions. I answered.

Um, no - you didn't. All you said (which had about as much point and substance as all your other posts) was:

"You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that he does."

That's not an answer, that's you evading the fact that Obama has expanded and escalated the policies set down by Bush, who in turn expanded and escalated the policies set down by his predecessor, and so on. The root of the problem isn't Romney's conservatism or Obama's "kill list" fetishes. It's a systemic issue, which any anti-capitalist should be capable of seeing (much less a marxist).

You attempted to twist that into an argument about what he has accomplished. That's not fair.

Assuming this is what actually happened, I couldn't give two shits about whether you think my questions about Obama's "accomplishments" aren't fair.

The discussion here, as exemplified in the OP, is about Mitt Romney's support for Israel and his stated intention to support their unilateral military attack on Iran.

Something Obama stands by as well.

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 19:52

If I am restricted I will have been victimized by your obsessive fear of dissent.

And, anyway, It seems that I am the only one arguing in favor of my views. How can that constitute an invasion of your sacred space "where we can go and chat with like-minded revolutionaries"?

Try not to be so territorial it's unbecoming of enlightened people.

Fear of dissent? You're hilarious. This forum is all about dissent among revolutionaries, and there is a hell of a lot of it. It's not a place for discussing how Romney's latest comments on Israel make voting for Obama a necessity. In other words, it's not about dissent between revolutionaries and liberals.

You can place as much stock in Romney's comments on Israel as you could in Obama's promise to revisit NAFTA when he debated Hillary Clinton in Ohio in early 2008, or his pledge to repeal Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy in the general election campaign in late 2008, or his pledge to close Gitmo, or his pledge to have a public option in the health care bill. And your discussion about Romney's comments requiring support for Obama is just as ludicrous as a discussion in 2008 about how those "firm" Obama positions require that revolutionaries support Obama over McCain. Debating these statements like they are accurate representations of the candidates' views, or are meaningful predictors of how the candidates will govern (especially if the position taken is opposed by entrenched business interests), is a complete waste of time. It rises to the level of offensiveness when you accuse people of having a principled opposition to freedom of expression just because they do not want to waste their time seriously "analyzing" the horse-and-pony show that is the general election campaign.

It's all just a bunch of hot air so that different factions of the ruling class can sway gullible people like you into pulling the lever by their name. The real election is taking place behind your back, and the actual policy decisions about Israel and taxes and all those other important issues you think are being debated openly and sincerely by Obamney will similarly be decided behind your back. If you had an Adult Marxist understanding of the state under bourgeois democracy, you would understand this. Instead, you have a liberal view of the state as a neutral arbiter and reflection of public opinion.

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 19:53

Please. :rolleyes:
Um, no - you didn't. All you said (which had about as much point and substance as all your other posts) was:
"You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that he does."
That's not an answer, that's you evading the fact that Obama has expanded and escalated the policies set down by Bush, who in turn expanded and escalated the policies set down by his predecessor, and so on. The root of the problem isn't Romney's conservatism or Obama's "kill list" fetishes. It's a systemic issue, which any anti-capitalist should be capable of seeing (much less a marxist).
Assuming this is what actually happened, I couldn't give two shits about whether you think my questions about Obama's "accomplishments" aren't fair.
Something Obama stands by as well.

Whatever.
Let's agree to disagree on this topic but let's avoid any personal animosity over it, okay?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 20:02

At least Chomsky agrees with my POV:

LFsZQedsWuw

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317710

Lucretia

29th July 2012, 20:04

At least Chomsky agrees with my POV:

LFsZQedsWuw

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317710

Well, gee, now that you've shown us that Chomsky supports your position... :rolleyes:

Raskolnikov

29th July 2012, 20:06

I'd like to know how 'Book O'Dead' views the aggressive policies that had ruined Libya (rebels killing African migrants on a whim over a bullshit story they spun up, bombing civilians via NATO, sending the country into chaos) and now supporting in Syria (once again a rather fundamentalist sunni action, reported to have been the perpetrators of the Houla massacre as well as being funded by the fundamentalist kingdoms in the Arabia Peninsula)?

Or Drones. He's expanded the Drone use there is no doubt on this, and prior to his "I won't deport anymore" - he did this.

"Since 2009, the annual average number of deportations has approached 400,000, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That’s double the annual average during President George W. Bush’s first term and 30 percent higher than the average when he left office." ( ABC news, Obama's Record High Deportations draws Hispanic Scorn)

He basically said 'fuck you' to the chicano community on several occasions before stopping due to protests by the chicano community and the fact he clearly wants to be re-elected.

Raskolnikov

29th July 2012, 21:04

You do realize that the only way for an Empire to exist is to provoke War, to be victorious, and to dominate?

He's merely doing what the Empire requires and just supporting Israel due to the fact it'll further US dominance in the region and have people divided upon the issue of Zionism and how it's either a parasitic thing or a "humanitarian" thing.

Red Commissar

29th July 2012, 21:14

I'm not sure if this is particularly different from Obama's own position regarding Israel. I'm pretty sure if it comes to blows Obama will be right with Israel in a war against Iran. Well, not sure- certain of it. The US-Israeli relationship is the most important in the region and it's childish to think that one administration has some how been "less" pro-Israel than the other.

The only real difference that has come up is over the settlements. The previous Bush administration was more lenient in this regard, but I think the Obama case here was less out of a concern for Palestinians that it was a practical one. The US isn't exactly in the best of places right now in the Middle-East and arguably can be seen as overstretched- ideally the US would like to try and get the involvement of other regional powers in a war with Iran and that won't happen if it appears this is solely for Israel's benefit. I think even with a Romney administration this policy will probably be continued.

Even though wikileaks has shown the Gulf Arab states to be more fearful and cold with Iran than they are with Israel, they are unlikely to throw themselves 100% behind the US here if they feel like they aren't being taken seriously with their own positions on the region.

Romney's just talking big because he's trying to appeal to the Republican core who are of the opinion that Obama is "weak" on foreign policy, and try to win over votes from Jewish voters in certain swing states who up until this past decade were usually solidly Democrat. We saw the same thing during the peak of the Republican primaries when many of the candidates stopped by AIPAC and basically said the same thing that's been repeated- Obama's weak on Iran, he doesn't like Israel, etc.

The false idea that Obama and the Democrats have "sold out" Israel has been a point that Republicans have been trying to hammer in for a long time to exploit for their own gain. It's all empty rhetoric in the end. The Obama administration has continued the same kind of aid that Israel has had before, and to think that a war with Iran is not on the table of an Obama administration I think is rather naive.

Krano

29th July 2012, 21:52

h4yWRY2Yg3Q

Vladimir Innit Lenin

29th July 2012, 22:44

A Romney administration will plunge the U.S deeper into war by allowing Israel to act unilaterally in the region.

This is consistent with the Bush/Cheney doctrine that prevailed for nearly 8 years.

Who wants a return to that?

You're absolutely right. Vote Obama to save us from pro-Israel policies, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the illegal classification (and murder) of ordinary Pakistani military-age male civilians as 'militants'.

:rolleyes:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

29th July 2012, 22:45

Besides, Romney would never be able to play an active part in Israel's aggression against Iran. He is one man in a governing class that knows it cannot risk war in the middle east or its precious ally Israel risks being destroyed.

It's very clear that Romney is all bluster when it comes to aggressive pro-Israel talk.

cynicles

29th July 2012, 22:51

Lol at Obama trying to get the US out of Iraq, all he did was follow Bush's timetable and even then he tried to pressure the Iraqi government into staying longer. The only reason he couldn't was because Iraqis were putting massive preassure on their government to force the Americans out.

Leftsolidarity

30th July 2012, 00:15

That's pretty much the only thing I like about Romney.

Did everyone miss this?^ :confused:

cynicles

30th July 2012, 00:43

Did everyone miss this?^ :confused:

I saw it and was suspicious but figured I'd wait to if he'd explain himself or say another stupid thing. It did have a faint wiff of hasbara about it though.

Leftsolidarity

30th July 2012, 00:44

I saw it and was suspicious but figured I'd wait to if he'd explain himself or say another stupid thing. It did have a faint wiff of hasbara about it though.

from the avatar it makes me think he's an anti-German or whatever it's called

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 00:48

from the avatar it makes me think he's an anti-German or whatever it's called

Why don't you wait until you're all done trying to beat on me and then we can all go after this guy?

Ooooh, I love left-wing witch hunts! Reminds me of Animal Farm.

Leftsolidarity

30th July 2012, 02:00

Why don't you wait until you're all done trying to beat on me and then we can all go after this guy?

I can multi-task

Ooooh, I love left-wing witch hunts! Reminds me of Animal Farm.

It's not really a witch hunt. The poster says that they supports Romney's stance on it and no one seemed to notice. The poster's avatar is one that resembles a logo of "anti-Germans" unless I'm mistaken. That would explain the poster's stance. I don't see how this is a witch hunt.

Luka

30th July 2012, 02:15

My avatar is a blue AntiFa symbol. No idea what that has to do with Anti-Germans. And i wrote that it is the only thing I like about Romney, because I support any action that is necessary to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons. Other than that Romney is just another capitalist politician, maybe a little bit worse than Obama, but on the most important issues they are pretty much the same.

cynicles

30th July 2012, 02:15

I can multi-task

It's not really a witch hunt. The poster says that they supports Romney's stance on it and no one seemed to notice. The poster's avatar is one that resembles a logo of "anti-Germans" unless I'm mistaken. That would explain the poster's stance. I don't see how this is a witch hunt.

'witch hunt' is another way of saying no one agrees with me so I'm gunna play the victim.

Positivist

30th July 2012, 03:12

Not quite.

What did Obama solve O'Dead? God knows where we'd be without NDAA, H.R. 347, "Obamacare," and intervention (read: regime change) in North Africa.

What is the matter with Obamacare? Obviously its not enough, but its better than the existing healthcare system. As for The NDAA I was about to mention that. Maybe if he would have repealed that than I would have seen him as truly interested in making a difference, just with a limited view of what could be changed, but with the NDAA intact I find that hard to believe.

Geiseric

30th July 2012, 04:59

I think that people are ignoring that Islamists are the new cheese in the Arab spring countries. The old gov'ts of Libya and Egypt formerly would have supported Israel, but i'm not sure if the region is honestly stabile enough for a war of this magnitude to work out for the capitalists. It would incur an Arab Spring on steroids, in any countries supporting the invasion of Iran, including Israel! i'm not sure where the working class of israel is on a prospective war, I would hope that they're sick of the state instigating wars for ~80 years straight, and this one would be the last one for Iran's islamist state and Israel's, regardless of who wins.

piet11111

30th July 2012, 05:29

I disagree with this opinion.

Could you say what part of my post is opinion and what you believe to be factual.

This should be interesting.

Le Socialiste

30th July 2012, 06:08

What is the matter with Obamacare? Obviously its not enough, but its better than the existing healthcare system. As for The NDAA I was about to mention that. Maybe if he would have repealed that than I would have seen him as truly interested in making a difference, just with a limited view of what could be changed, but with the NDAA intact I find that hard to believe.

It essentially requires anyone who doesn't get care from an employer or qualify for the government's Medicare and Medicaid programs to purchase a policy from private insurers, which in all likelihood will be unaffordable for most. The prevalence of loopholes, coupled with significant pressure from private insurance lobbyists, has weakened the law considerably at state and federal levels. Any benefits (barring insurers from refusing care on the basis of "preexisting conditions," for example) are overshadowed by measures that grant extensive concessions favoring the medical-pharmaceutical complex. For instance, the law will most likely result in millions being forced to buy plans from private companies that are, on average, subpar, but at inflated prices. People will basically have coverage far beyond their price range, with no guarantee of adequate care.

Can't afford a plan? If you're alone it's a $695 fine; for a family $2,085 per year (or 2.5 percent of household income). State governments have opted out from the Medicaid expansion plan outlined in the law en masse, claiming it infringes on "state's rights!" Additionally, the law allows health insurance companies the right to charge different rates for different people, effectively giving them a freehand in deciding who they can and/or want to provide coverage for (this essentially overrides my earlier mentioning of insurers being barred from refusing care depending on one's preexisting conditions). Thus a company can indirectly refuse aid to, say, the elderly by charging exorbitant prices/rates. SocialistWorker.org has a great article (http://socialistworker.org/2012/07/09/john-roberts-and-health-care) on the subject. It was really revealing for me, and many of my points can be found in the article (since I read them there first!). Here's a short passage:

The Mandate in the health care law guarantees private insurance companies millions of new customers--and billions of dollars in government subsidies for those customers. But it doesn't guarantee that insurers will provide adequate coverage to those who buy mandated policies.

cynicles

30th July 2012, 06:10

bcbm

30th July 2012, 06:30

Foreign policy in the United States is dictated by Israel.

um no it isnt

Geiseric

30th July 2012, 06:33

Well the American working class isn't reactionary, no working class as a whole can really be called "reactionary," not even in Nazi Germany. The basis of marxism is class struggle existing in every capitalist country, not withstanding Israel. We saw thousands of Israelis protesting last year against the government even. The issue lies with whose leading the working class, and I'm wondering how far the working class is in Israel to establishing its independence from the petit bourgeois labor bureaucracy.

cynicles

30th July 2012, 08:33

There were a minority of leftists, and I mean a minority, who signed on with some Palestinians to oppose the occupation and that was it. I find it sad/hilarious how Israeli can protest about a housing shortage without seriously confronting an occupation that tears down entire villages. J14 has a long way to go at best, it and the occupy movement mean nothing if they don't address these and other similar issues with courage and conviction.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

30th July 2012, 11:29

On the subject of Romney and his support for Isreal / opposition to Iran:

US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said his country has a "moral imperative" to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Mr Romney, speaking during a visit to Jerusalem, said Iran was the most destabilising country in the world.
He said the US recognised Israel's right to defend itself and that it was right for the US to stand with Israel.
Mr Romney also referred to Jerusalem as Israel's "capital" - senior Palestinian officials said this was "unacceptable".
In his speech in front of Jerusalem's Old City, Mr Romney said Iran's leading ayatollahs were "testing our moral defences".
"They want to know who will object and who will look the other way. We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel."
He said Iran was "the most destabilising nation in the world" and that the US had "a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran's leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions".

Yessir Mr Romney, Iran has destabilised the world sooo much, all the wars it's raged, all the coups it's supported, all the pressure it puts on dissenting voices using it's financial, political and military might with...oh hang on, wrong country.
But yeah, woop, USA n Israel 4eva, yippee!

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 13:01

[...]
He said the US recognised Israel's right to defend itself and that it was right for the US to stand with Israel.[..]!

Yeah. But somehow, Iran's right to defend itself is not an important issue.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

30th July 2012, 13:59

Whatever.
Let's agree to disagree on this topic but let's avoid any personal animosity over it, okay?
I disagree with your assertion. The majority of the comments have focused on the flaws in your arguments and logic, not ad hominem. If there is any "personal animosity" that can be gleaned from this thread towards you, it is because you have refused to defend your views in an honest manner. Any argument is either ignored or branded "ad hominem" so that you can avoid discussing your "lesser of two evils" stance. It is my opinion that you are dodging, and while you do you will continue attract negative attention.

Positivist

30th July 2012, 15:51

...

Can't afford a plan? If you're alone it's a $695 fine; for a family $2,085 per year (or 2.5 percent of household income). State governments have opted out from the Medicaid expansion plan outlined in the law en masse, claiming it infringes on "state's rights!" Additionally, the law allows health insurance companies the right to charge different rates for different people, effectively giving them a freehand in deciding who they can and/or want to provide coverage for (this essentially overrides my earlier mentioning of insurers being barred from refusing care depending on one's preexisting conditions). Thus a company can indirectly refuse aid to, say, the elderly by charging exorbitant prices/rates. SocialistWorker.org has a great article (http://socialistworker.org/2012/07/09/john-roberts-and-health-care) on the subject. It was really revealing for me, and many of my points can be found in the article (since I read them there first!). Here's a short passage:

This makes sense to me for the most part, and I originally opposed the bill on such grounds, but I recently read that healthcare purchases were being subsidized for anyone of an income lower than 95 thousand dollars a year for a family of four. Is this not the case? Or if it is, is theories a loophole corresponding to subsidies as well.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 16:30

I disagree with your assertion. The majority of the comments have focused on the flaws in your arguments and logic, not ad hominem. If there is any "personal animosity" that can be gleaned from this thread towards you, it is because you have refused to defend your views in an honest manner. Any argument is either ignored or branded "ad hominem" so that you can avoid discussing your "lesser of two evils" stance. It is my opinion that you are dodging, and while you do you will continue attract negative attention.

Right...So your contribution to this argument is...what?

mew

30th July 2012, 18:26

back to daily kos with u, book of dead.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 18:35

back to daily kos with u, book of dead.

This sort of shit makes me suspicious that you may be a Romney plant to sow confusion among U.S. leftists here in this forum.

Romney and his tribe are so desperate to beat Obama that they would do anything to widen the margin in their favor.

Think about that before you level slanderous innuendos against me.

mew

30th July 2012, 18:39

piet11111

30th July 2012, 18:49

This sort of shit makes me suspicious that you may be a Romney plant to sow confusion among U.S. leftists here in this forum.

Romney and his tribe are so desperate to beat Obama that they would do anything to widen the margin in their favor.

Think about that before you level slanderous innuendos against me.

Now i am certain you are trolling.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 18:52

lol.
i just find it hilarious all of the arguments you make e.g. "you make it sound as if a war, once entered into, can be ended by presidential fiat. This is not a realistic expectation" are EXACTLY the things said (by the more conservative liberals) over and over on Daily Kos.

I don't need to read the Daily Kos for talking points; I'm able to express myself extemporaneously without any assistance.

Also, If I were parroting the Daily Kos or some other liberal publication I would long ago have posted a link to it. I don't need them to inform my speech.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 18:57

Now i am certain you are trolling.

I can't win for losing with your sort.

If I defend myself from malicious innuendo, I am trolling? What about the person that insinuates against me, he's not trolling?

Oh, I guess not, from your distorted POV.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

31st July 2012, 00:14

Right...So your contribution to this argument is...what?
Simple. My contribution was pointing out your unique approach to social matters, which consists of cynicism, hypocrisy and deflection. That's all. Anything beyond that I leave to you and your opponents.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

31st July 2012, 14:27

Oh. It seems that he has been banned. So much for hoping that blood would eventually be squeezed from the stone.

maskerade

31st July 2012, 14:36

Why don't you wait until you're all done trying to beat on me and then we can all go after this guy?

Ooooh, I love left-wing witch hunts! Reminds me of Animal Farm.

good riddance.

MaximMK

31st July 2012, 14:36

Hexen

31st July 2012, 21:40

USA's foreign politics never change they still wanna invade countries for oil no matter if its the democrats or the republicans. The parties exist only to distract the people. The big fat ass capitalists run the state, politicians just listen to the guys with cash. USA is USA it doesn't mater if its Romney or Obama they will still be the biggest anti-Marxist greedy capitalist country.

Of course it's also because the US and currently the entire world runs under the oil standard hence the imperialism for it which is this whole thing is about in a nutshell and it's just how the capitalist system works.

In short: Wars are part of the inner workings of the system.

Jimmie Higgins

1st August 2012, 10:09

Foreign policy in the United States is dictated by Israel.No, the US ruling class has an interest in maintaining Israel as an agent and ally in US imperial interests in the region. US support and funding began in after Israel showed it's ability to police the area for Western interests.

Before that it was the UK for the same reasons: Israel and the UK attempted to take control of the Suez canal from Egypt, for example. Clearly this would be in the UK's interests, and Israel's interests were in being a client state with the backing of a major power.

It's the same with the US now - the US needs Israel but supports it out of US interests, not Israeli.

Lol the Israeli working class is very supportive of Israel's policies, they were at the forefront of aiding and supporting the ethnic cleanings and colonizations during the labor government years. They're as reactionary as the American working class.While there are certaintly many people in the US who support aspects of US imperialism and hold racist views and so on, I don't think it's possible to make this comparison on a material level. Israeli dominance in the region and the land they give to settlers depends on the backing and support of the US - consequentially, settlers and parts of the non-ruling class Israeli population actually receive a material benefit through supporting the Zionist project and US imperial interests. They can spend money on social reforms because the US foots the military bill - this has caused even "socialist" support for Zionism and of course labor-Zionism in Israel.

Conversely, many right-wing people in the US may BELIEVE that they benefit from US military dominance in the world, but materially, they actually are the worse for it. A comparison could be drawn to the US during the settlement era where the big plantation owners, ruling elite, as well as independant small farmers were united in material interests when it comes to clearing land of the native population. So at that time large sections of the US population (other than natives, slaves, and white servants and debtors) all benefited from colonization of the frontier - they didn't benefit equally, but their material needs converged. But as the working class developed in the US and the land became commodified and owned rather than given in exchange for indentured servitude, with industrialization and the development of US imperialism, this changed. Workers in the US have nothing to gain from US imperialism but stronger and more confident oppressors.

cynicles

1st August 2012, 10:23

No, the US ruling class has an interest in maintaining Israel as an agent and ally in US imperial interests in the region. US support and funding began in after Israel showed it's ability to police the area for Western interests.

Before that it was the UK for the same reasons: Israel and the UK attempted to take control of the Suez canal from Egypt, for example. Clearly this would be in the UK's interests, and Israel's interests were in being a client state with the backing of a major power.

It's the same with the US now - the US needs Israel but supports it out of US interests, not Israeli.

While there are certaintly many people in the US who support aspects of US imperialism and hold racist views and so on, I don't think it's possible to make this comparison on a material level. Israeli dominance in the region and the land they give to settlers depends on the backing and support of the US - consequentially, settlers and parts of the non-ruling class Israeli population actually receive a material benefit through supporting the Zionist project and US imperial interests. They can spend money on social reforms because the US foots the military bill - this has caused even "socialist" support for Zionism and of course labor-Zionism in Israel.

Conversely, many right-wing people in the US may BELIEVE that they benefit from US military dominance in the world, but materially, they actually are the worse for it. A comparison could be drawn to the US during the settlement era where the big plantation owners, ruling elite, as well as independant small farmers were united in material interests when it comes to clearing land of the native population. So at that time large sections of the US population (other than natives, slaves, and white servants and debtors) all benefited from colonization of the frontier - they didn't benefit equally, but their material needs converged. But as the working class developed in the US and the land became commodified and owned rather than given in exchange for indentured servitude, with industrialization and the development of US imperialism, this changed. Workers in the US have nothing to gain from US imperialism but stronger and more confident oppressors.

The only problem with that is the native population was mostly wiped out before it happened, I'd really rather we not wait for that to happen to the Palestinians in this case.

Jimmie Higgins

1st August 2012, 10:30

The only problem with that is the native population was mostly wiped out before it happened, I'd really rather we not wait for that to happen to the Palestinians in this case.Of course! I didn't mean to suggest that the development of a working class would have automatically put a stop to this genocide, just that a new class of people grew and became a large part of the population who didn't benefit from the occupation of native lands - whereas earlier, Yankee "yeomen" farmers were often the ones petitioning the elites to wipe out native populations - much like the settlers in Israel are bat-shit reactionaries by and large who act like a sort of vigilante force because they actually materially benefit from the oppression of the Palestinians.

The oppression of Native Americans and Palestinians isn't because rulers want to contorl their labor - they are a "surplus population" and obstacle to be removed one way or another. It's a different situation, for example, with the oppression of blacks after the US civil war, where the rulers didn't want to get rid of them, they wanted to control them for exploitation - so anti-black racism actually hurt white tennent farmers in the south and acted as downward pressure on the wages and working conditions of the merging northern working class. None of this is to say that material interests automatically mean people will act on these interests or reject identifiying with the interests of the ruling class, many whites supported white-supremacy and many support racism today - but ultimately this is causing their own lot to be worsened.