Imperialism And Resistance

By

Cindy Sheehan

Webster’s Dictionary defines empire as: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially: one having an emperor as chief of state.

Even though most of us do not call our “chief of state” Emperor, the USA is most certainly an empire. We have all the trappings of empire (military parades, glorious coronation balls, an elite few ruling the empire) but the Oligarchs (rule by the few) call it a “democracy” so the plebes must buy into the myth that our nation is in any way democratic. Our military is used for spreading colonial capitalism all over the world. Even in the heyday of the Roman Empire, most conquered local governments retained some autonomy, unless, of course, the will of the people conflicted with the will of the Emperor.

Is there any bigger bureaucracy than the US government…that contains the US Military Industrial Complex? At this point, it is hard to distinguish the two behemoths…does the MIC control the government or is it the other way around? Does the government support the MIC, or has the MIC overtaken the government to insure that the bloody empire continues? Is there an evil synergistic relationship between the two that will destroy the planet before The Empire® collapses under its own gluttonous weight?
Continue Reading »

As the liberal imperialists gather to replace the neo-con imperialists, it will become vital that we all begin to understand that the differences in style and dress should not distract us from the issues. At the same time, we also need to understand and recognize the mask, so that we have an easier time pulling it off, and exposing their actions.

The Democratic Party has managed, contained, controlled, co-opted, rolled back, and eventually destroyed every social movement that has arisen since then.

…(the author) devotes an entire chapter to explaining how and why the Democrats are just as imperialist as their counterparts across the aisle and points out that all the major wars of the 20th century were launched by Democratic politicians who claimed to want peace while they prepared for war. The fact that the party that jumped into two world wars, used nuclear weapons, designed the Cold War, and started “small” wars in Korea and Vietnam is seen as being less pro-war than the Republicans is a feat that would impress Karl Rove.

It appears that Muslims (and non-Muslims) with short memories have forgotten the role that Colin Powell played in the destruction of Iraq, and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands. It was Powell who, infamously, lied to the UN security council about Iraq’s nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction” – a lie that formed a basis for the US attack on the people of Iraq.

Fact is Powell does not appear to have changed much since his days with Bush – and his endorsement of war monger Obama, is more a reflection of how close Obama is to US imperialism, rather than any change in Powell’s point of view.

Here is a snippet from Powell’s statement today:

And I’ve never blinked from that. I’ve never said I didn’t support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific.

So, “everybody” thought the war was “terrific” — I wonder who Powell thinks is “everybody” — does it include the thousands of innocent Iraqis who were killed by US bombs by the 9th of April? Nope, for Powell, and the US imperialists, the only “everybody” that matters are those around his clique of elites – that include both McCain AND Obama.

Supporters of Powell like to claim that Powell was just being a “good soldier,” but, with apologies to German readers, the proper colloquial term for Powell’s behavior is that of a “good German.” A “good soldier” not only doesn’t have to obey illegal orders, it is is obligation to disobey them. From Powell’s role in covering up the My Lai massacre, to his speech at the U.N. which even he recognized was filled with “bullshit,” Powell has acted to promote illegal actions; in the latter case, he played a key role in moving American “establishment” opinion to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans. Of particular interest are statements like these which Powell made in his U.N. presentation:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

AND

… Colin Powell was an up-and-coming staff officer, assigned to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai, Vietnam. He was put in charge of handling a young soldier, Tom Glen, who had written a letter accusing the Americal division of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Rather than speaking to Glen about the letter, however, Powell’s response was to conduct a cursory investigation followed by a report faulting Glen, and concluding, “In direct refutation of this (Glen’s) portrayal, is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.”

Minor glitch. Soon after, news surfaced about the Americal division’s criminal brutality at My Lai, in which 347 unarmed civilians were massacred; Powell’s memoirs fail to mention the Glen incident.

Fast forward to April 2002, and having risen to Secretary of State, Colin Powell reported to a US congressional panel about his visit to the Jenin refugee camp, site of a recent Israeli attack. Powell testified, “I’ve seen no evidence of mass graves … no evidence that would suggest a massacre took place … Clearly people died in Jenin – people who were terrorists died in Jenin – and in the prosecution of that battle innocent lives may well have been lost.” In the same vein, Amnesty International issued a short release stating that while it appeared “serious breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed … only an independent international commission of inquiry can establish the full facts and the scale of these violations.” For its part, the White House also claimed more facts were needed, and then Bush called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a “man of peace.”

A Press Conference

Muslims in the US, who are thinking of voting for either of two major war parties, might want to remember the authentic hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings on him and his family) :

“The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe.”

Muslims living inside of the empire have an even greater responsibility to not ally one’s self, or vote for anyone who has promised to expand the war on Islam and Muslims (and thus killing more Muslim children and families) – both war party’s candidates have promised more of the same.

Obama, in particular, has promised to further intensify the war in Afghanistan, and expand it to Pakistan. Even mainstream newspapers have recognized, that the recent attacks by the Bush regime on Pakistan is an implementation of Obama’s policies: A vote for Obama/McCain is a vote for more war on Muslims, and more killings of Muslim children and families – such a vote clearly goes against the sunna of our beloved Prophet (peace and blessing on him and his Family).

From Washington Post, 9/15/08:

U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government’s approval — an idea that Obama first endorsed.

When Bush announced the new troop deployments to Afghanistan, for example, Obama said he was “glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”

Obama, although supportive of the shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, criticized the effort as too little and too late.

via press tv:

US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.

Obama supported the raids but described them as “baby steps” by the Bush’s administration.

“The Bush administration has come to that point of view. That’s the kind of policy we have to pursue and continue …This is a baby step, but it’s a baby step in the right direction and something that John McCain hasn’t been willing to acknowledge,” Susan Rice, the top foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, said.

“Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, in fact, has been saying frankly since before the invasion of Iraq that the central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to invest there,” she noticed.

I have not read the book linked below, but after reading this interview with the author, I’m gonna order it:

“A major part of the problem is that American liberals really seem to think there’s a decent, representative democracy under all of the machinery and violence. If only the Democrats ran all branches of government, and did so for an extensive period, many of these obstacles would be cleared away — or so the mantra goes. This naturally extends to war. I can’t tell you how many local yards have both ‘War Is Not The Answer’ and ‘Obama `08′ signs in them. As if one goes with the other. Since Obama has promised to expand the Terror Wars, and continually speaks in hawkish tones, this would seem odd to a skeptical outsider. But it’s very common within the US. As there’s no serious political alternative to the corporate-owned state, people have to dream, create scenarios, in which their votes ostensibly ‘make a difference.’

While the neo-con imperialists slaughter children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the liberal imperialists (Obama and his followers) say that the US needs to send more troops to Afghanistan:

“”His (Bush) plan comes up short — it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency,” Obama said.”"

This election year is all about playing with the lives of children: US imperialist style.

The only thing that the left-liberal can do in response, is attack the religion of the VP candidate of one of the two war parties.

The notion that the Iraqis have to pay the US back (through oil, or other means) has been a mainstay of the extreme right wing Republicans. The rational goes that the Iraqis have plenty of money, and that they should pay the US for the troops occupying Iraq.

This is, of-course, plainly bogus. The US invaded and destroyed the country of Iraq – and, if anything, it is the US that owes reparations to the Iraqi people. Now, Obama, pandering to the extremist right wing, has come out in support of right wingers who want the Iraqis to pay the US, and usurp the right of Iraqis to use their resources to rebuild their country. And he is intent on taking the extremist right wing FOX news host, O’Reilly, with him… How utterly pathetically low of Obama, and the liberal Democrats who continue to support this fraud.

This is not the first time Obama has expressed this extremist right wing sentiment, he said the same thing during his lousy speech at the convention: “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits.”

SEN. OBAMA: — We are still spending, Bill, 10 (billion dollars) to $12 billion a month (to the Iraqis)

MR. O’REILLY: And I hope if you’re president, you can get them to kick in and pay us back.

SEN. OBAMA: They’ve got $79 billion in surplus!

MR. O’REILLY: And I’ll go with you!

SEN. OBAMA: Let’s go!

MR. O’REILLY: We’ll get some of that money back.

SEN. OBAMA: (Laughs.)

A very good analyses of Obama’s speech (excerpts):

… the central purpose of the speech was to show that he can provide a new and supposedly more “progressive” rationale to mobilize popular support behind American militarism.

…his indictment of the Bush, McCain & Co. was notable for what it left out. There was no mention of Guantánamo, torture, secret CIA prisons, illegal wiretapping, or all the other violations of democratic rights carried out on the pretext of conducting a “war on terror.” In a key Senate vote last month, Obama backed expanded wiretapping and surveillance powers for agencies like the National Security Agency and the FBI.
…

Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. He presented the US occupation, which has shattered Iraq as a functioning society, as though the Bush administration was favoring that country at American expense. “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits,” he complained.

…in his acceptance speech, he made it clear that he was running not as a principled opponent of the Iraq war, but as an advocate of a different war.

“While Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face,” he said. “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

Obama argued that Bush’s bellicose posturing over Iraq had served as a substitute for a more coherent global strategy. “You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington,” he said. “You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.”

In other words, instead of continuing the stalemate in Iraq, Obama wants to extract US troops from that quagmire so they can be used in Afghanistan, against Iran, or in the struggle against more powerful antagonists like China and Russia.

The candidate invoked Roosevelt and Kennedy as Democratic predecessors, not for their association with liberal social reforms, but in their capacity as leaders during World War II and the Cold War.

It is both true and damning to note that Obama’s rhetoric and approach are reminiscent of the Democratic president responsible for the single greatest atrocity in the history of American imperialism, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

An Obama administration would involve the use of liberal demagogy—without any actual economic concessions to working people—to support an aggressive program of American militarism in the Middle East, Central Asia and throughout the world.

While the despicable liberal imperialists parade their “cute” children on stage at the Democratic Convention, Obama’s favored war, in Afghanistan, resulted in the killing of 60 children by the US military forces. I have to wonder if even the Germans, under the Nazis, were so cynical as the US imperialists: while its forces continue to indulge in mass killings, about 1/2 of the country rallies around a guy who has promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and even expand it into Pakistan.

UN: 90 Afghan Civilians, Including 60 Children, Died in US Attack

In Afghanistan, a UN probe has backed claims of a massive civilian death toll from a US air strike last Thursday. The UN mission in Kabul says investigators found some ninety civilians, including sixty children, were killed in the attack. There are concerns the toll could mount once the rubble is cleared. The slain children were said to be between the ages of three months and sixteen years old. All died while they slept.

There are only a bare 6 or 7% of Americans who will cast their vote for someone other than a war monger of either of the two so-called “parties.” Cindy Sheehan had this to say in the comments section of this news report on Afghanistan:

I do support and will vote for Cynthia McKinney, i am not going to vote for anyone who supports killing Afghan children (or Pakistanis or Iranians or Iraqis or American). I don’t care if it is McCain or Obama.

The Non-Aligned Movement’s conference’s backing (118 countries) which echoes the group’s previous declarations, acts to “remove this notion that the international community opposes the nuclear activities of Iran,” said Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

Words such as “international community” “civilized world” “democratic world” , when uttered by the imperialists, refer to, of-course, only the United States, and its allies and puppet regimes. Anyone else who might actually be independent, and act as a normal state, people, community – are categorized as “uncivilized,” “extremists” etc.

The contender for the imperial presidency (Obama) words in Berlin are instructive, that he clearly, like Bush and McCain, considers the enemy and problem to be located amongst Muslims, the dude says:

“If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope,” the Democratic senator said.

Fact is, the majority of the people of the world, and especially the vast vast majority of Muslims (i.e. the real international community) consider the US to be the problem. The momineen of the world do not need, or want imperialists to be standing around – rather, if they find such people near, it would be a good idea to either move away, or push ‘em away.

And yes, Muslims not only can, but are willing, and do stand with that minority of Americans who not only reject their country’s extremism that leads to hate instead of hope, but also act against their country’s rogue acts around the world. And we hope that minority, one day, will become a majority, inshallah.