A friend of mine sent me to the blog of Clay Claiborn, who proclaims himself to be Antiwar and Anticapitalist in his bylines. But his #1 issue appears to be support for the Free Syrian Army, and was very critical of the Obama Administration for "not supporting" them, and he still sells Free Syrian Army flags.
So here he claims to be antiwar, and he also criticizes the Imperium for not waging war with his own enemy, otherwise known as the internationally recognized government of Syria.
Thinking about this, if a "peoples army" needs or even accepts aid from the Emperor, it is not a "people's army." It is a proxy army.
How long has the US been supporting "rebels" (terrorists) in Syria? I would imagine back to about 1945 or so, when the British pulled out of the middle east.
So basically you could say that every rebel movement in Syria since 1945 has been corrupted by the blood money of the Emperor.
Unless they sternly refused any help. Sternly and transparently. Why? How can I necessarily call the acceptance of foreign aid from forces with geopolitical interests to necessarily be corrupting? Surely they have independent minds anyway!? For the simple fact that this is the beginning of, and likely the endless continuing need for--even if they are successful, a client state relationship with the Empire.
The Emperor could be big or small, btw, the World Superpower, or the Bully on the Block.
Anyway, among his other virtues, such as pure nuttiness? for supporting a defunct army, it's the hyprocrisy of claiming to be antiwar when actually he calls for the imperium to support his war, after which he'd be happy to have no more wars.
And there's a thing about Capitalism also. One cannot be Anticapitalist and support proxy wars of the Empire. Empire is the highest form of capitalism.
Now if Clay Claiborne wants to fight on behalf of the Free Syrian Army, there's a longstanding tradition of Americans going abroad to fight on behalf of their causes. He'd then be free to make moral mistakes or be a moral hero, despite my thoughts it would probably be the former, but they'd be for himself.
But the cause of the US military is supposed to be the defense of the US people. And the best way to defend the US people would be to stop fighting proxy wars all around the world, and to end the US empire itself. And that's also the most moral thing for the US military to do, unless there's a possibility for some kind of relief aid that it might best fill. Or, they should all gear up to build renewable energy and transmission, and that would be the best defense too.
The moral response to "helping people" is foremost to ending the conflict, part of which is aided by stopping, rather than supplying, arms and help.
The second part is accepting refugees for as long as necessary. Our interventionism was behind all the wars going way back. Therefore, it is in large part our responsibility to take care of refugees.
The revolution is either within one, or within all.
Now I can imagine some clever internationalist point out that the USA got help from the French in it's revolutionary war, and I must think that was not such a bad thing. But not only am I not condoning that help, it's clearer and clearer that the US revolutionary war was entirely immoral, geared toward the preservation of slavery and land theft across the continent. It certainly wasn't antiwar or anticapitalist. And it wasn't ultimately helpful to the French Monarchy, either. Me and friends of mine would prefer the National Health System, and the Parliamentary System. But it's not clear I would have existed without the nordic settler colonialism of the 1850's.
So here he claims to be antiwar, and he also criticizes the Imperium for not waging war with his own enemy, otherwise known as the internationally recognized government of Syria.
Thinking about this, if a "peoples army" needs or even accepts aid from the Emperor, it is not a "people's army." It is a proxy army.
How long has the US been supporting "rebels" (terrorists) in Syria? I would imagine back to about 1945 or so, when the British pulled out of the middle east.
So basically you could say that every rebel movement in Syria since 1945 has been corrupted by the blood money of the Emperor.
Unless they sternly refused any help. Sternly and transparently. Why? How can I necessarily call the acceptance of foreign aid from forces with geopolitical interests to necessarily be corrupting? Surely they have independent minds anyway!? For the simple fact that this is the beginning of, and likely the endless continuing need for--even if they are successful, a client state relationship with the Empire.
The Emperor could be big or small, btw, the World Superpower, or the Bully on the Block.
Anyway, among his other virtues, such as pure nuttiness? for supporting a defunct army, it's the hyprocrisy of claiming to be antiwar when actually he calls for the imperium to support his war, after which he'd be happy to have no more wars.
And there's a thing about Capitalism also. One cannot be Anticapitalist and support proxy wars of the Empire. Empire is the highest form of capitalism.
Now if Clay Claiborne wants to fight on behalf of the Free Syrian Army, there's a longstanding tradition of Americans going abroad to fight on behalf of their causes. He'd then be free to make moral mistakes or be a moral hero, despite my thoughts it would probably be the former, but they'd be for himself.
But the cause of the US military is supposed to be the defense of the US people. And the best way to defend the US people would be to stop fighting proxy wars all around the world, and to end the US empire itself. And that's also the most moral thing for the US military to do, unless there's a possibility for some kind of relief aid that it might best fill. Or, they should all gear up to build renewable energy and transmission, and that would be the best defense too.
The moral response to "helping people" is foremost to ending the conflict, part of which is aided by stopping, rather than supplying, arms and help.
The second part is accepting refugees for as long as necessary. Our interventionism was behind all the wars going way back. Therefore, it is in large part our responsibility to take care of refugees.
The revolution is either within one, or within all.
Now I can imagine some clever internationalist point out that the USA got help from the French in it's revolutionary war, and I must think that was not such a bad thing. But not only am I not condoning that help, it's clearer and clearer that the US revolutionary war was entirely immoral, geared toward the preservation of slavery and land theft across the continent. It certainly wasn't antiwar or anticapitalist. And it wasn't ultimately helpful to the French Monarchy, either. Me and friends of mine would prefer the National Health System, and the Parliamentary System. But it's not clear I would have existed without the nordic settler colonialism of the 1850's.
No comments:
Post a Comment