Soon Samantha Power will push for American military intervention in Canada and Sweden to “help” us.
One question that must always be discussed before a state is allowed to intervene in another country’s affairs for “humanitarian” purposes: “Will the intervening state carry out its actions with pure, unsullied intentions?”
Today’s servant of power is:
1) Is there a BBC documentary on the 1953 Iranian coup d’état?
2) Take a look at these two articles and decide for yourself which one sounds more honest:
One of the other big issues on the front pages now is Chinese “aggressiveness.” There is a lot of concern about the fact that the Chinese are building up their missile forces. Is China planning to conquer the world? Big debates about it. Well, what is really going on? For years China has been in the lead in trying to prevent the militarization of space. If you look at the debates and the Disarmament Commission of the UN General Assembly, the votes are 160 to 1 or 2. The U.S. insists on the militarization of space. It will not permit the outer space treaty to explicitly bar military relations in space.
Clinton’s position was that the U.S. should control space for military purposes. The Bush administration is more extreme. Their position is the U.S. should own space, their words, We have to own space for military purposes. So that is the spectrum of discussion here. The Chinese have been trying to block it and that is well understood. You read the most respectable journal in the world, I suppose, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and you find leading strategic analysts, John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher, a couple of years ago, warning that the Bush administration’s aggressive militarization is leading to what they call “ultimate doom.” Of course, there is going to be a reaction to it. You threaten people with destruction, they are going to react. These analysts call on peace-loving nations to counter Bush’s aggressive militarism. They hope that China will lead peace-loving nations to counter U.S. aggressiveness. It’s a pretty remarkable comment on the impossibility of achieving democracy in the United States. Again, the logic is pretty elementary. Steinbrunner and Gallagher are assuming that the United States cannot be a democratic society; it’s not one of the options, so therefore we hope that maybe China will do something.
Well, China finally did something. It signaled to the United States that they noticed that we were trying to use space for military purposes, so China shot down one of their satellites. Everyone understands why — the mili- tarization and weaponization of space depends on satellites. While missiles are very difficult or maybe impossible to stop, satellites are very easy to shoot down. You know where they are. So China is saying, “Okay, we understand you are militarizing space. We’re going to counter it not by militarizing space, we can’t compete with you that way, but by shooting down your satellites.” That is what was behind the satellite shooting. Every military analyst certainly understood it and every lay person can understand it. But take a look at the debate. The discussion was about, “Is China trying it conquer the world by shooting down one of its own satellites?”
Jesus would have been a socialist. There’s no doubt about that in my mind.
This is what happens when you let all the frauds and phonies trick you into thinking that you are one yourself:
all law springs from lawlessness
all order springs from discontent
it’s a double hook
and there’s a policeman in my head
paid from the rich man’s pocket
to keep the poor man’s politicsfrom spilling over the dam
“People who claim that they’re evil are usually no worse than the rest of us…”
― Gregory Maguire, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Those associated with the American government and who help forge American foreign policy have categorically shown that they don’t care about any human being on the planet including the American people at large, so why do they suddenly care so much about “helping” the Ukrainian people?
(This is why it’s dangerous for administrators of Academic institutions to propagate the idea that thought and how much “thinking” people in society are doing is solely restricted to revision/approval by “professionals,” in my opinion;- because the most obvious answers are discouraged and unacceptable and replaced by something that looks fancier but is often less accurate, in my opinion.
To be honest, having dealt with academic staff, faculty and administration, I actually notice that most people within the administration are actually quite nice and level-headed (ie. regular people.) However, there is always one or two personalities that tend to occupy a generally high-level position within the staff of every faculty of every institution who seems to think that stamping out good ideas and blocking greater efficiency for the faculty and student body at large is part of his/her job requirement…)