Bush State of War

[arielle]

I don't know where to put this topic so I guess I can stick it here.

Me and a couple of friends have been thinking about what is going to be happening in the next upcoming President election in the United States. One of my friends came out with a radical idea. "What if the Bush administration pulls another 9/11 only this time larger and more extreme, like a war on our own lands? Causing a state of War where he can not leave office until it was over."

I couldn't help but to feel shaken to my core by that very idea. Has anyone else thought of this happening in the United States? And if it does a small group of comrads (including me) have decided it would ultimitly throw our country into a state of civil war, causing a change of government.
Any other comrads have thoughts on this? ( or at least like this )

[C_Rasmussen]

^ First and foremost, the government may be watching this site so dont give them any ideas. Wouldn't be suprised what that brainless redneck has in store for this country.

[Rollo]

I had the same thought. Anybody else hear about al-quaeda telling all muslims to leave the country by yesterday?

[Zero]

Nah, its too early for that. It's going to be a few more prez-elects.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 10:55 pm
I couldn't help but to feel shaken to my core by that very idea.
Yea, great, I once got scared of the idea of the world loosing orbit and everyone getting sucked into a vaccume. And what about getting lost in a haunted catacombs? or Blair deciding he's a nazi and sending us all off to the death camps, that's all pretty scary isn't it.

We can all pull make-belief fanatasy stories out of our ass.

[Rollo]

Like john howard reaching 6 foot tall?

[ComradeR]

While it's not outside the realm of possibility for those neo-con bastards to stage something at the last minute, it's really unlikely because it would give revolutionaries something to rally the people around.

[Comrade Castro]

Anyone heard of Al-Qaida's supposed purchase of old Soviet nuke materials? I don't think it would be successful to stage a whole war on US soil, but what about the government simply detonating a small nuclear or "dirty" bomb in a large city and then blaming Al-Qaida? It's not too farfetched with their need to do something to increase Bush's record low popularity levels, and few things would better rally the ignorant republican masses around Bush and his war than the dramatic image of a nuclear cloud rising over a US city. Just a theory.

[Pawn Power]

Don't you realize that the elections are just a game? It don't matter when Bush leaves or the GOP looses "contol" over the house or whatever, we're still fucked!
They don't need to stage some rediculous war to stay in office because they already got the next election locked in, it will be democrats or republicans in the gov.

[Janus]

What if the Bush administration pulls another 9/11 only this time larger and more extreme
Another 9/11? You would have to prove that Bush pulled it. And it would take a lot more than that to create a civil war in the US.

[RebelDog]

They don't need to stage some rediculous war to stay in office because they already got the next election locked in, it will be democrats or republicans in the gov.

Too true, they are just seperate wings of the same party. Bourgeois elections are for themselves. They give them legitimacy. The US elite don't really care who gets in so long as the toe the line and they always do. How can elections in the US ever change things, one has to be a millionare to take part.

[ComradeR]

Too true, they are just seperate wings of the same party. Bourgeois elections are for themselves. They give them legitimacy. The US elite don't really care who gets in so long as the toe the line and they always do. How can elections in the US ever change things, one has to be a millionare to take part.
Yep they've made the chances of anyone outside of their control getting elected virtually impossible, it's capitalist democracy in a nutshell. That's why unfortunately the only way we will ever be able to truly change this country is through force of arms.

[Diwi]

"...That's why unfortunately the only way we will ever be able to truly change this country is through force of arms."

As a pacifist, I could never agree with or take part in that concept. It's only buying into the false endless "war on terror" nonsense. And violence and war have only and always will, imo, only lead to more of the same, endlessly...
:mellow:

[ComradeR]

As a pacifist, I could never agree with or take part in that concept. It's only buying into the false endless "war on terror" nonsense. And violence and war have only and always will, imo, only lead to more of the same, endlessly...

Yes but when the other options are removed by the state it's the only option left, as is quickly becoming the case here. So when the time comes you can ether choose to resist, or bow down and surrender your freedoms.

[ComradeR]

Oh and i agree with you on that "war on terror" shit, it's just the states new "cold war" so they can justify continuing to give the "president" endless wartime powers.

[Diwi]

I strongly believe that after the atomic bombs were dropped at the end of WWII, "war" or "violence" as a response to aggression/violence, can ONLY lead to more wars and violence, both of which concepts eliminated by the atomic bombs.

For the dropping of the atomic bombs signaled an end to "limited" war of a sort. If Adolf had had the A-bomb, would he have used it? Or the leaders of Japan? Or various other following needless "wars" including Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War One and "iraqi FUCK YOUR MAMA Freedom?"

Since two remaining "Axis of Bush's stupid concept of a modern day EVIL" countries already have nukes, as well as North Korea, perhaps Iran soon, and Pakistan and India, and Israel, what's the whole concept of "war" or "violence to settle disputes" become, but meaningless?

I am reminded of Obi-Won, putting up his light saber and giving in to death(?) to Darth Vader, and his "if you strike me down, I will only become stronger."

I know in this crazy world, pure pacifism seems ridiculous to most. But I think it's the only way out of this neverending cycle of violent nonsense. Eventually. Not in our lifetimes maybe, but eventually. I'd rather live a life of such while I'm here at least. Then at least, when I leave this mortal coil, I can say I at least tried to reach beyond the insanity which only begets more of the same.

I do not necessarily extend this to personal, purely self defense, only to large groups and nation-states. The whole concept of the latter, betrays truly individual thinking and reasoning, gives in to primitive "group think," and to me, will never solve any real problems or differences, only continue them.

That all seems illogical to me, regardless of my meaningless individual fate.

How are we "free" let alone morally superior to our supposed "enemies" if we behave exactly as they do, or worse?

[RebelDog]

For the dropping of the atomic bombs signaled an end to "limited" war of a sort. If Adolf had had the A-bomb, would he have used it? Or the leaders of Japan? Or various other following needless "wars" including Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War One and "iraqi FUCK YOUR MAMA Freedom?"

The nuclear age signaled the end of superpowers engaging in 'direct' wars against each other. During the cold war the US and the USSR battled by proxy, Korea, Afghanistan etc. Hitler would have used the atomic bomb without any doubt, so would Japan. A ruling regime is at its most dangerous when it faces extinction. That is why the logic in the anti-war movement was that Iraq would be most likely to use WMD's (if the lies were true) if attacked by the US and the UK. If you don't use WMD's when you are invaded, when do you use them? The US would not use WMD's if its shores were breached by an invader?


Since two remaining "Axis of Bush's stupid concept of a modern day EVIL" countries already have nukes, as well as North Korea, perhaps Iran soon, and Pakistan and India, and Israel, what's the whole concept of "war" or "violence to settle disputes" become, but meaningless?

The bourgeoise always has and always will use violence to settle disputes, seize foreign resources and open new markets. The "axis of evil" statement would be better re-phrased as 'axis of non-co-operation with the US grand strategy'. Like it or not the US is the most violent country in the world right now. The US exports its 'supremacy' through mass murder and bullying with virtual impunity. This is the privilege of the empire, no country can realistically check US imperialism at the moment. So long as the world has ruling elites and competition for resources, there will be war. Capitalism is a system that doesn't allow for peace.


I know in this crazy world, pure pacifism seems ridiculous to most. But I think it's the only way out of this neverending cycle of violent nonsense. Eventually. Not in our lifetimes maybe, but eventually. I'd rather live a life of such while I'm here at least. Then at least, when I leave this mortal coil, I can say I at least tried to reach beyond the insanity which only begets more of the same.

Pacifism is rightly frowned upon here. How can the only way out be to lie down and allow the bourgeoise to rule, unchecked, to excess? The contrary is true. We must break the bourgeoise monopoly on violence and rise in revolution. Nobody will ever tell me that I can't use violence to get rid of the most murderous system one could possibly imagine, that only helps them. The bourgeoise use the power of the state to protect them, we must smash the state. No rational person likes violence but it is the only way to stop the insanity. The bourgeoise need a long overdue taste of their own medicine.

[Diwi]

I'm still unfamiliar with what is "frowned upon" here. I would just argue that my thinking in general about violence (and wars), and my "pacifism" is derived from a feeling based upon my own personal experiences and education, like I should be living a few centuries from now, when hopefully mankind has evolved beyond what I feel are the new "dark ages." Generally, the vast majority I believe today, lives in a false "matrix" world. Things accepted as non-"news" and a given today (like current empire-building, ignored genocide, sanctioned torture, growing gap between rich and poor, etc.) to me are quite insane. I often imagine myself as someone who say perhaps, in a previous life, thought "slavery" was absolutely insane and just plain wrong, but who lived in the 18th century. Or that burning witches was okay. Or that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet here I be, stuck in this primitive 21st century.

Our personal and individual lives and beings are unimportant to me in the long run.
We are only dust in the wind. What can distinguish us, these various meaningless particles in the vastness and mysterious cosmos, why we formed the League of Nations, and the UN, why we still give out prizes for "peace," why at one time we looked back upon Earth from the camera of a primitive spacecraft, and knew that we were one, and alone, and must fight for our mutual survival, is our ability to study history. And present times. Study and ingest it all without bias, without emotion, without unwarranted judgment, and say, they got the guns but, we got the numbers. And we shall overcome, someday.

It doesn't bother me that this idea in general may not come to pass in my lifetime.
nor that it may be "unpopular." Or unaccepted. As I said, I personally believe I live in a very primitive time, on a very primitive planet.

I will not be part of the cycle of irrational violence. Nor will I support it in any form, for whatever cause. Because if the "cause" uses or needs to resort to using violence, then that cause itself is irrational, by default.

Insanity-Irrational. How does one "solve" insanity by acting irrationally insane?

[LSD]

I often imagine myself as someone who say perhaps, in a previous life, thought "slavery" was absolutely insane and just plain wrong

And then what do you imagine doing about it?

Pacifists didn't end slavery. They didn't end feudalism and they didn't end theocracy. Tyrannies are defeated when people fight back, not when they sit on their asses and whine about how "primative" everyone else is.

If you don't like the way the world is run right now, do something about it. Obviously you can't singlehandedly remake society, but you can certainly play a part.

But you accomplish nothing when you refuse to get involved, when you conclude that the world is too "primative" and humanity too "matrix-like" for anything progressive to get done.

Times don't change, people change them; and they do it all the time. The reason that things are better now than a hundred years ago is not that "time's arrow flies forward", but that millions of people fought and died so it could becomes so.

Are you really so brazen as to call their sacrifice "irrational"?

The miners, the factory workers, the farmers and dockers and cleaners who took on the collective might of capitalism and won, even small victories; they were "insane" in your mind, were they?

They were "part of the cycle of irrational violence" because they took action to defend themselves against crushing oppression?

What's "inane", what's "irrational", is to do what you would suggest, to sit on our collective asses and wait for the universe to solve itself for us. To condemn those who would actually do something while offering nothing yourself.

Your elitism is frankly sickening.


Our personal and individual lives and beings are unimportant to me in the long run.

Well, they're sure as hell important to the rest of us, and that's why we're willing to fight to improve them.

If you genuinely don't care about your life or anyone else's, I suppose it's understandable that you wouldn't be willing to put in the effort to ameliorate them. But somehow, I find your claim a little hard to believe.

With very few exceptions, everyone care about their own life. This line of yours about being detatched and removed from the real world, frankly, it reads more like a defence mechanism than an honest analysis of your feelings.

If you didn't care about anyone, you wouldn't be a pacifist. You wouldn't be anything, because you wouldn't care.

No, clearly the reality is that you do care, you're just so depressed by what you see around you that you'd rather escape into a philisophical dreamworld than deal with it.

Well, I suppose that's one way of solving your problem, but it's not a very effective one. A much better one would be to recognize that "violence" isn't he problem, and "humanity" isn't the problem; oppression is the problem. And it needs to be fought by any means nescessary.

By any means nescessary.


Study and ingest it all without bias, without emotion, without unwarranted judgment, and say, they got the guns but, we got the numbers. And we shall overcome, someday.

Again, you're avoiding rather than confronting.

"We shall overcome"? What is this, amateur poetry night?

The only way to overcome violence is through violence, whether used, threatened, or implied. Pacificism may make for good campfire songs, but it makes for lousy politics.


I will not be part of the cycle of irrational violence. Nor will I support it in any form, for whatever cause.

Then nothing will ever change.


Because if the "cause" uses or needs to resort to using violence, then that cause itself is irrational, by default.

Your logic is flawed. Violence is a tactic, it's neither "moral" nor "immoral" and its "rationality" is entirely dependent on the circumstances in which it is used.

A slave who kills his master to escape bondage is not "irrational", he's desperate and his actions are not only understandable but justified.

If you can't understand that, I really don't know what else to say. But you'd better get the hell out of our way when the time comes, because we certainly don't share your "morality" when it comes to defending ourselves against those who would hold us down.