Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1438 Editor's Choice: 20
-
pete b
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Six hundred thousand to a million Iraqi innocent civilians dead due to a criminal invasion and occupation, plus millions displaced -- that is "change for the good".
That's right. To quote a neocon on a different board (and maybe the same neocon), "Power requires Sacrifice". Which, incidentally, summarizes Mussolini's philosophy in three little words.
With its stress upon the irrational, upon instincts and activism, fascism insists upon the 'iron logic of nature' which will always make the strong prevail over the weak, the more resolute over the irresolute, and thus aims at educating the nation to develop strength, courage, and resolve, and by these means to ensure its victory.
All fascist activity is devoted to this preparation for what it regards as the inevitable and beneficial struggles which form the life of nations. Fascism, therefore, repudiates above all else the idea of peace and harmony. War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.
Fascism carries this antipacifist spirit over even into the lives of individuals. It is education for combat.
These words by Mussolini are amplified by his famous statement that "War is to the man what maternity is to the woman. I do not believe in perpetual peace; not only do I not believe in it, but I find it depressing and a negation of all the fundamental virtues of man." Therefore, to continue in Mussolini's words, "The whole nation must be militarized . . . I consider the Italian nation to be in a perpetual state of war."
The creed of fascism is heroism, the praise of audacity and danger, devotion and sacrifice for the nation and its necessary wars.
"Fascism", Encyclopaedia Britannica (1966)
In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Excellent. And profit they will, if they can. Smedley Butler knew that "War is a Racket", didn't he?
And so it is.
-
Martin Gifford
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Power is never really for the sake of power.
You don't know megalomania when you see it. Sorry, you're wrong.
I think Neocons want to spread happiness around the world, it’s just that their method is based on bad information (Strauss). They think “What’s good for America is good for the world.”
You're gravely mistaken. Neocons could care less about America except as a carcass to be stripped of its wealth and as a staging ground for military imperialism. The evidence should be obvious.
Neoconservatism is quite explicitly about power, and nothing but power, in the hands of an exclusive elite. They have said so. Did you not believe them?
You need to lay off the happy pills. They're making you blind.
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is good reason to conclude that the Chernobyl disaster and the subsequent containment efforts were the straws that finally broke the back of the USSR.
Quite right.
The Soviet system was recognized to be inherently untenable long before it collapsed. Nixon discussed this a couple of times in the 1980s. Besides being grossly wasteful it was susceptible to failure due to the fallacy of sufficient information: there is never enough information to make it possible to operate a large-scale centrally-planned economy, which is why modern economies instead mostly rely on capitalist market forces to determine set prices and allocate resources through supply and demand.
It's very standard political economics. Capitalism works pretty well, too, unless the markets are rigged by oligopolies and monopolies, which is why American capitalism isn't working. Adam Smith would be appalled and would clamor for market freedom - through government regulation, if necessary.
Contemporary Russian scholars point to the Tschernobyl disaster as the precipitating factor in the Soviet collapse because it discredited the bureaucracy and forced radical political change. The Soviets beat each other to pulps over it. It was far more horrendous than most people in the West realize, and the instability of the Tschernobyl containment even now threatens to create yet another catastrophe at any time.
These same scholars laugh at people who credit Reagan, by the way, as did Nixon.
-
Arne Langsetmo
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read Richard Rhodes's "Arsenals of Folly" . . . Highly recommended.
Agreed.
Still, in most large-scale political changes it's possible to point to important singular incidents which tip the balance. But it isn't these singular incidents which cause the change. There are always much larger underlying currents which necessarily enable these singular incidents to create the final impetus.
But there is also a tendency to place an improper emphasis on singular incidents at the expense of much larger long-term factors.
There is a 'punctuated equilibrium' theory in political history, just as there is a 'punctuated equilibrium' theory in evolutionary history.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The Soviet system was recognized to be inherently untenable long before it collapsed."
A fanciful fiction. Some saw it coming - Brzezinski for example, but not many. The great league of Sovietologists and other 'experts' completely failed to see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming coming as did many western intellectuals.
Ah, my old nemesis, jgg1000a! I'd recognize that reek of brimstone and spoiled silage anywhere. The style of lying is also familiar.
Pray tell, what 'great league of Sovietologists' are you referring to? Do you seriously think more than a handful of people ever made a living at it? And how many of those were employed by the MIC to maintain the myth of those Russians, ten feet tall and covered with hair, in order to 'justify' vast military profitability?
And please, give us your reasoning for believing the Soviet system was such a robust one. Tell us about that marvelous Russian economic miracle!
You can't. Because there wasn't one. But give it your best shot. Try not to aim at your foot this time.