Thursday, September 20, 2007

The Crude and Sadistic Cheerleaders for War with Iran

(I give no support to the silly and puerile intro to this clip)

On a recent Fox news broadcast a gaggle of the bourgeoisie excitedly discussed the possibility of attacking Iran. The tone of this segment is astonishing – wild emotions, smiles, an even laughter accompany crude and lying arguments for the perpetration of another enormous war crime. The topic is casually framed by the question of whether war with Iran is good for business. There are disagreements – over when to attack, and over the effect on the market – but an attack itself is considered either acceptable or an immediate necessity.

An attack on Iran will be a catastrophe, a tragedy, and an enormous impetus for worldwide military conflict. With that in mind, consider this attitudes and arguments of this debate.

We begin with the “moderator,” Terry Keenan, quickly establishing herself as an equivalent, in terms of objectivity, of the panelists: “Iran is in the spotlight again, better for us to act now or pay the price later?” Here a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn't even possess such weapons, is regarded as inevitable. Ann Coulter picks up this theme and makes it even cruder, stating “I assume it would not be good for wall st. if we're all dead. Yes, act now.” Furthermore, she notes that the Iraq invasion brought a big rally on the stock market.

Then we are introduced to a very agitated young man, Jonathan Hoenig: “I just can't believe NOW we're drawing up war plans with Iran!? (moderator: pleasant chuckle) Where the hell have we been since 1979?!!? (more laughter seemingly from several of the women) Iran is spiritual and militant heart of radical Islam! So far we've been very weak I mean what are we doing right now cutting off their bank accounts!? This is appeasement by every other name.

During this tirade, THE COST OF FREEDOM pops up as the segment title, while Hoenig is identified by his enterprise, Hoenig provides personal portfolio analysis, at just $199 an hour. That also gets you a free “Capitalist Pig” T-shirt. According to the website, “Under attack from regulators, collectivists and left-leaning altruists, the American capitalist ranks among the world's most vilified constituencies. Yet no other group has contributed more to the greatness and majesty of modern civilization than the honest American citizen looking to make a buck.”

In this debate, on behalf of the “American capitalist,” Hoenig is in fact agitating for the destruction of a significant portion of the modern civilization.

Meanwhile, our moderator comments that a U.S. attack would be feasible if it were “successful like the Israeli pre-emptive attack.” Presumably, she is speaking of the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the death of at least 1,300 civilians and the destruction of much of southern Lebanon. Yet even by military standards it was no success, as Hezbollah swelled in support after the attack.

Ann Coulter then notes Israel is a good ally for an attack on Iran, while France and Germany are “dangling the bait in front of us.”

Hoenig obnoxiously continues with this incredible statement: “we don't need a "George Bush" war where we go in and build roads and schools and make everyone happy like democracy. We need a war that actually protects America! That starts with taking out the nuclear threat from Iran. We know of 10-15 sites there and we have the technology. We just don't have the cahonies to use it.”

The climax of the piece comes when the “liberal” accepts and says “so let's get rid of him (the Iranian President Ahmadinejad)” to which Hoenig bursts out “ABSOLUTELY JERRY HE'S THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I MEAN COME ON who are we fighting?”

This is the crazed discussion over what will likely amount a crime even greater than the Iraq war and the destruction of Iraqi society. The explanation of this enthusiasm and ruthlessness for further war is not simply because Fox News is the host. Rather, this is what the ruling class of American society looks like when it brazenly discusses the violent pursuit of it's own interests.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Antiwar March in D.C.

An Iraq veteran being arrested after breaching the barrier.

The police line at the base of the Capitol.

On Saturday, September 15th, an anti-war march was held in Washington D.C. to end the war in Iraq. For several hours speakers like Ramsey Clark and Ralph Nader meandered on with standard calls to pressure the Democrats in Congress - even though the Democrats, just as much as the Republicans, are deeply implicated in the crimes of the war. by mid-afternoon, the crowd began to march from the White House over to the Capitol.

The march ended at the base of the Capitol, where protesters were supposed to create a “die-in” on the lawn by laying down and simulating death. As the crowd built up, though, there was a tangible pressure to “do something” at the walled area the police were using to prevent any further encroachment. A few people breached the barrier, including veterans, and faced immediate arrest by heavily armed police. Otherwise, the mass of people were simply there, with no indication of how any of these efforts would have an effect on war policy.

Eventually ANSWER organizers came around with bullhorns telling everyone to lie down for the die-in, which would represent the pain and suffering caused to Iraqis and in turn make Congress aware of the cost of war. The tense mass pressed against police barriers gradually turned into relaxed groups of people laying around on the grass. The protest rapidly began to disperse in this extremely anti-climatic finale, with a very potent sense the absolutely nothing had been accomplished.

"While no doubt there are many prepared to be arrested and jailed to demonstrate their opposition to this criminal war, the self-sacrifice involved in such actions is misspent to the extent that it is subordinated to the orientation of those like ANSWER, whose aim is to get the Democrats to “stand up.”

The "die-in"