the choice of dick cheney once again as vice president to yet another bush administration, was proof enough of dubya's intention to devour the world's resources relentlessly for unilateral benefits; and follow policies favoring nothing except increasing the economic wealth of selected american businesses -remember halliburton?-, with little regard for values that we assume that make man a respect-worthy creature.
dubya and cheney are representatives par excellence of the ugly american of the 50's and 60's; that greedy, avaricious, nefarious, grabbing, irreverent model of imperialism. they have blood on their hands from the financial profits that were reaped from the many wars they have championed, from viet nam to iraq, twice.
now, dick cheney, is going to step down u.s. air force 2, with his blood stained boots, on turkish soil. he is going to ask ankara to support his career-long-wet-dream, (any) military action against iran- from which, he must hope, companies like halliburton or bechtel that he symbolizes as a most hated specimen of a businessman-politician from the most hated ally, can reap extra kudos, as they do in iraq.
cheney will ask turkey for some blood acre, probably, because washington maintained a relative condoning silence while turkish forces operated in northern iraq.
these are men who, because they can manage a large company (*), think they can rule the world. they could, too... on the morning of the coup d'etat on september 12, 1980, the one that turned so bloody that nearly 70 persons were hanged in addition to hundreds shot, tortured and otherwise harassed, one official that later became a big shot in the dubya regime phoned washington and relayed the good news: "our boys did it..."
dick cheney & associates inc., have licked turkish blood off their fingers, too.
wonder if they realize that truly global companies, not imperialistic relics are more and more swarming the upper levels of fortune 100 lists.
---------
(*) "manage" may be an euphemism... many of halliburton's deals have received criticism, if only for immensely lacking transparency.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
the world needs both hillary and hussein
one good sign about america's upcoming polls is that the republican plague will probably end. even the most die hard urban middle class voters seem to have had enough, after eight years of dubya.
however, this makes the democratic caucuses still more crucial, for a definitive win by barrack hussein obama may mean that the same mental disease that globalized the bush havoc, namely an ignorance of world affairs is going to persevere. in seven years of the dubya regime, america paid scant heed to the outer world. not just reaping but raping the opportunities of overseas profit was the sole goal of u.s. world politics. a win by obama may continue the situation not at all because that is hussein's policy -actualy, hillary may be more prone to that- but because those universal rapists are far savvier than the guy from hawaii. i never take campaign speeches seriously but nevertheless, obama's stance seems to over-favor (so called) isolationist policies for my taste.
americans should keep in mind, just because dubya is already a sitting duck does not mean that the colossal wave of anti-american sentiment he amassed in seven years is going to flatten away, before hitting some sad shore.
why hillary then? obviously, she is a seasoned first lady, rather than a good world class politician. yet, she is probably more sympathetic toward the universal public. she probably is more popular among europeans and africans than for many folks in the midlands and meadowlands of rural america. she is not only cognitively disposed to but also has a political crop to harvest from the development of an efficient and effective global capitalist network, i.e., one that also benefits, even on a wee small scale, the society it invests in (exploits, if you are marxist oriented) as well as the financial center it originates from. that is why she has carried all the globally active states and almost none of the rural-local ones. that is why the texas draw is tilting toward hussein already. ohio, her last win, for instance, thrives on high tech exports!
hillary's supporting corps are also experienced, knowledgeable experts who are aware that war is costly and there are cheaper and mutually beneficial alleys leading to solutions in peaceful methods. after all, capitalism is about profit rather than conquest.
whom would you have paying an official visit to your country in the name of america's president in today's world? dick cheney, condi rice or madeline allbright?
and imagine that instead of that blood stained ambulatory $ sign, dick cheney, it is the cute, sympathetic, ernest new generation, outgoing next president of the u.s., barrack hussein, who climbs down the stairs of u.s. air force 2...
obama is a man who only stands to gain from playing second fiddle for one or two terms to hillary; while learning to become an even better president, not from her but her husband, who happens to be brightest light in recent american political history, possibly, even brighter than jack kennedy.
that is why the world needs both hillary and hussein.
however, this makes the democratic caucuses still more crucial, for a definitive win by barrack hussein obama may mean that the same mental disease that globalized the bush havoc, namely an ignorance of world affairs is going to persevere. in seven years of the dubya regime, america paid scant heed to the outer world. not just reaping but raping the opportunities of overseas profit was the sole goal of u.s. world politics. a win by obama may continue the situation not at all because that is hussein's policy -actualy, hillary may be more prone to that- but because those universal rapists are far savvier than the guy from hawaii. i never take campaign speeches seriously but nevertheless, obama's stance seems to over-favor (so called) isolationist policies for my taste.
americans should keep in mind, just because dubya is already a sitting duck does not mean that the colossal wave of anti-american sentiment he amassed in seven years is going to flatten away, before hitting some sad shore.
why hillary then? obviously, she is a seasoned first lady, rather than a good world class politician. yet, she is probably more sympathetic toward the universal public. she probably is more popular among europeans and africans than for many folks in the midlands and meadowlands of rural america. she is not only cognitively disposed to but also has a political crop to harvest from the development of an efficient and effective global capitalist network, i.e., one that also benefits, even on a wee small scale, the society it invests in (exploits, if you are marxist oriented) as well as the financial center it originates from. that is why she has carried all the globally active states and almost none of the rural-local ones. that is why the texas draw is tilting toward hussein already. ohio, her last win, for instance, thrives on high tech exports!
hillary's supporting corps are also experienced, knowledgeable experts who are aware that war is costly and there are cheaper and mutually beneficial alleys leading to solutions in peaceful methods. after all, capitalism is about profit rather than conquest.
whom would you have paying an official visit to your country in the name of america's president in today's world? dick cheney, condi rice or madeline allbright?
and imagine that instead of that blood stained ambulatory $ sign, dick cheney, it is the cute, sympathetic, ernest new generation, outgoing next president of the u.s., barrack hussein, who climbs down the stairs of u.s. air force 2...
obama is a man who only stands to gain from playing second fiddle for one or two terms to hillary; while learning to become an even better president, not from her but her husband, who happens to be brightest light in recent american political history, possibly, even brighter than jack kennedy.
that is why the world needs both hillary and hussein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)