American Extremists: "Do you like crippling?"
American Extremists webcomic archive:
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/
[Welcome Glenn Greenwald readers!]
Please see also Arthur Silber and Chris Floyd on possible citizen action to stem the rising tide for war with Iran, this on the Democratic posture on "crippling sanctions," and the following posts on the rhymes between U.S. policy on Iraq and Iran:
Day of Shame 2012 cartoon
Day of Shame 2012 main post
"Change has come" cartoon
Note:
Labels: American Extremists
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 11:41 AM
9 Comments:
-Hmmm:
The suffering and death caused by this administration in Iran doesn't come from "blood lust", but rather from a dry cynical utterly ruthless foreign policy position that Obama assumes maximizes his chances for re-election and doesn't rock the boat with Israel. That Obama can live with himself, never mind enjoy the spectacle and never mind his wife and her finally being proud of this country, is mind numbing.
I will agree, it's a particularly banal form of blood lust. But insatiable nonetheless.
I agree, it's Hillary who has the serious bloodlust of the two. That Obama was much more of the evil Spock from the Mirror Mirror universe than Hillary's evil Kirk, and that's what got him elected.
Oh, of course, Obama -- who claims the right to assassinate American citizens without the barest wisp of due process... and the one who hired "evil Kirk" as his Secretary of State -- possesses some special innocence, at least relatively. It's so important to maintain the illusion that he was somehow preferable, lest we examine the process by which he was coronated.
That's not to say they are exactly the same ideologically. They are, but Obama's demeanor has always been more relaxed -- the good cop to Hillary's bad cop. In the end, Obama's fluke of opposing the Iraq War was enough to sway (or trick) Democratic voters in the primaries.
I don't think Obama's initial opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq was a "fluke." He was in agreement with numerous Democrats -- the far-left fringe as far as the corporate media were concerned -- who were perfectly willing to commit aggression, as long as it was done properly. Or as long as it didn't get us into another quagmire.
And don't forget, Obama's been beating the war drums against Iran since at least 2007, another point he has in common with many other liberal Democrats.
but rather from a dry cynical utterly ruthless foreign policy position that Obama assumes maximizes his chances for re-election and doesn't rock the boat with Israel.
The "weak Obama" narrative is nonsense. This is the same as Iraq, really, an attempt to gain strategic control over oil supplies. This can either be done by conquering Iran outright, or by making sure it has no domestic energy alternative -- such as nuclear power -- so that in a fairly short time rising internal energy consumption would eat up all its oil exports (cf Egypt, Indonesia).
The idea that he's somehow being bullied into starting a major war is just more of the same good cop/bad cop nonsense we've been getting since before he took office.
-Hmmm:
Good to see the link to this cartoon from Glen Greenwald; indeed, the blood-less or blood-lust discussion doesn't detract.
I have to agree that Obama is simply doing it because he thinks it increases his re-election chances, but which is worse, blood lust, or putting his own ambitions above the suffering/death of others?
I'm really not sure myself, but i think the second is worse, because it justifies/increases/plays on the blood lust that is far too prevalent in this country all ready.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home