XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.iraq
XPost: soc.culture.latin-america, soc.culture.syria, soc.culture.african
XPost: soc.culture.pakistan
From: acoustic@panix.com
In article <35c3b759-2513-45ab-bfd3-e1f722403751@googlegroups.com>,
PeteWasLucky wrote:
>Seriously I wanted to vote for one of them to avoid the other but I am
>not really sure it makes any differences.
It surely doesn't seem like it would, as history has shown us, does
it?
From George W Bush to Obama for the last 16 years, how many innocent
folks have been killed because of Washington's geopolitical interests?
And these 16 are only the latest, and the most ridiculous, of the
years of our killing spree. There was a steady rise of military
interventions, always resorting to trickery, false accusations, and
the sword, beginning with Bush 41 and followed by Bill Clinton, as
soon as the USSR was no more. There was no peace dividend from the
large increase in military spending during the Reagan-Bush years when
USSR went away. Only a lot more bloodshed.
Did it have to be?
No one is saying that when Trump becomes president, it will be God's
Kingdom on earth. He may be just as bad as Hillary in terms of
killing innocent people in the defenseless world. But the ferocity
with which the extant power structure opposes his candidacy shows
unambiguously one thing, and that is that they are afraid that Trump
will not be as easily controlled as Hillary would be.
But except for the most cynical, why should anyone who abhors
bloodshed and killing not have the right to even hope that maybe, just
maybe, Trump would not be as evil as George W Bush, not as cynical and
cold-hearted as Obama?
And if the string of his criticism of the wars under Bush and Obama in
the context of how much they have hurt the US economy has any
substance, maybe there is hope.
No one denies the grip the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) has over
this country, especially in its new millennial form as specified in
the document Project for the New American Century (PNAC). If the MIC
was bad enough in President Eisenhower's time, it is certainly worse
now.
But if we don't have hope, we would not be Christian. And since this
is a nation of Christian people, it should be self-evident that we're
entitled to do our best and hope for the best for our legacy, if
nothing else.
The politicians who have occupied the White House all claimed to be
Christians. How did they manage to be so glib about pulling the
trigger on so many Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Libyans, and
Syrians? Of course, they are not what they claimed to be. But does
that mean that the people themselves should not try, again and again?
But even if we aren't Christians, how can we accept the injustice done
in our name and all the lies that have gone with it and will continue
to do so? Is it just because we aren't directly the targets of bombs
and bullets? Are we contented to be just a bigger pool of living
organisms just like a dish of bacteria or viruses?
Finally, being aware of how the Deep State (or MIC or whatever is
their latest incarnation) has been doing and is expected to do to
prevent Trump from seizing power, I'm not hopeful. But what he has
done has been courageous and helpful in raising folks' consciousness
about the wars waged by George Bush and Obama/Hillary. So, his
candidacy, along with Jill Stein's and the shorter-lived Rand Paul's,
would not have all been for naught in awakening the conscience of the
American people.
The level of interest in this election, partly due to the ferocious
reactions of the Establishment to Trump's candidacy and partly due to
the lack of logic in Hillary's, actually indicate that there is a good
reason why it is so. It is food for thought for today!
lo yeeOn
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
