U.S. cursed by US Right Wing

[waioli kai]

Reactionary US

Reactionary

A reactionary (sometimes: reactionist) is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. The political attitude of a reactionary is reaction, reactionism. Reaction is always presented against something that it opposes. Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire , coined in the early 19th century.

It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French revolution. "In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries." (1) A reactionary is sometimes described as an extreme conservative, but whereas a conservative seeks, in the simplest terms, to preserve the status quo , a reactionary seeks to return to the situation of a prior time. In particular the term is used to describe those who are seen to oppose "progress" and particularly revolutionary change , and is used in revolutionary contexts interchangeably with the word counterrevolutionary.

Classical 19th century reactionaries and their heirs idealized either feudalism or the pre-modern era that preceded the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution when economies were largely agrarian, the landed aristocracy (the financially "well-connected") dominated society, an hereditary king was on the throne and the church was the moral centre of society. Thus, reactionaries once favored the aristocracy over the middle class and the working class, even though they later favored the conservative bourgeoisie. In that context, reactionaries are against democracy and parliamentarism.

Reactionary is nowadays mostly used pejoratively by political groups, especially those of the "left-wing", to qualify politicians that they accuse of wanting to reverse (when not outright destroy) some progress (in the U.S., such progress as international cooperation, Social Security, civil justice, war crimes conventions, scientific facts) and that they claim has been beneficial to society.

In Marxist terminology, "reactionary" is generally used with a pejorative meaning, to refer to supporters of feudalism, capitalism or fascism (feudalists and fascists are considered the most reactionary, while left-wing capitalists are considered the least reactionary).

The term may be also be used in self-description by people who believe in strict obedience to a god or to various social structures that they consider immutable (the social hierarchy, the "natural law", the "original laws of the state", the "loyalty to one's tribe").

The term "reaction" appeared in Europe during the French Revolution, when conservative, and especially Catholic, forces organized to oppose the changes brought by the revolution and to fight to preserve the authority of the Church and Crown.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

..

[waioli kai]

Fascistically right-wingward

"And the left has won how many elections lately?"

Elections whose results and mandates were not subverted either covertly or overtly by employees/agents of the government by, for and of Corporate America?

"It would seem that U.S.elections under our form of government has been be a good test of ideas."

"Our" form of government? Corporate America's government, the U.S.?The U.S. Government is a corporatist economy's/world's dream come true of nations worshiping at the altar of corporatist/state capitalism: any contrasting ideology is crucified in fields jingoistic righteousness...to the cheers of a great majority of deluded U.S. citizens.

"...the left, including the Democratic Party..."

The Democratic Party is only "left" when contrasted to the fascistically "right"ward location of what has become "the center" in U.S. politics. The Democratic Party is not Left, it is just not yet Republican.

[waioli kai]

Greatest scam ever perpetrated

Wall Street abyss, not mere sinkhole:

"Who is going to pay the exorbitant fees charged by brokers?
Most brokers charge in excess of $35.00 per transaction for even a minimal purchase of stock. Those people who earn so little that they will have to rely on Social Security, won't be able to afford to pay those kinds of ridiculous fees. Not to mention the costs of gathering enough accurate information to make informed decisions about what stocks (bonds, mutual funds, etc.) to invest in.

Are not the "Personal Accounts" advocates assuring the U.S. populace that as Wall Street (financial services corporations included) grows so grows the worth of "personal accounts" (ie, the "social security" taxes taken directly from workers paychecks added to trillion$ borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, all to be deposited in care of Wall Street) ? The fees paid by taxpayers to Wall Street to manage 'social security' Personal/Private Accounts will actually be corporate profits that in turn are supposedly to be shared with public investors (assuming such profits are of a publicly held corporation), Personal Account receipts being among such investment!! A giant Ponzi scheme?

All the U.S. corporatist class fear-mongering directed at the peoples' Social Security system on the premise that the "baby boomers" are going to exhaust the funding of the Social Security Trust Fund as they retire from the work force begs the question: Since a significant portion of Wall Street's supposed worth reflects baby boomers' Wall Street adventures in corporatism while the boomers are in the work force , why would not the viability of Wall Street be even more threatened as boomers begin cashing out of Wall Street in the course of their retirement. And , as the boomers do divest of such holdings, Who is going to be purchasing negotiable paper/bytes which the boomers wish to sell, if not the U.S. Government via revenues collected from taxpayers on behalf of Corporate America?

- - -

"...as boomers begin cashing out of Wall Street in the course of their retirement...Who is going to be purchasing negotiable paper/bytes which the boomers wish to sell.."

Apart from Corporate Americas' tax on U.S. workers (aka, "Private/Personal Accounts"), far from enough domestic numbers of purchasers will exist to make baby boomers' Wall Street wealth be what those boomers expect it to be worth in years to come. There should be some "great deals" on Wall Street as baby boomers, seeking to maintain their lifestyles, cash out of Corporate America on their work-free journeys to old age.

- - - -

'There should be some "great deals" on Wall Street as baby boomers, seeking to maintain their lifestyles, cash out of Corporate America on their work-free journeys to old age.'

Won't they be cashing out of their and their investment corporations' holdings of Treasury Bonds during their expected 25-40 yr. retirements? ?Will their Wall Street sustain all of them and their heirs plus all those "newcomers" being welcomed -- --indeed guided, driven-- into the greatest scam ever perpetrated on humanity: Wall Street

Even though the scammers themselves seem to be a little more nervous than usual about the possible consequences of failing to be able to pull off this Corporatist Account/Personal Account tax (from a corporatist point of view, it is "savings" ) on employees --their latest sleight of hand finance-- not that they really had/have a choice. It's not a gamble for them, it is more of "status quo", or ...nothing ..else... but a fight to the mortal end.

[waioli kai]

Fascism Anyone?

FASCISM ANYONE?

Laurence W. Britt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

(more)

[waioli kai]

Re: Fascism Anyone? (cont'd 2of2)

(cont'd)
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.



Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

Laurence Britt’s novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.

<<<<>>>>>

"What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think." --Adolf Hitler

[waioli kai]

Happy-Face Fascism

"When trying to make sense of the seemingly inextricable political morass into which we've descended, one of the real keys to understanding our situation is realizing that conservatism and the "conservative movement" are in fact two entirely different things. . . . The "conservative movement" . . . has become something entirely new, a fresh political entity quite unlike we've ever seen before in our history, but one that at the same time seems somehow familiar, as though we have seen something like it. . . . Call it Pseudo Fascism. Or, if you like, Fascism Lite. Happy-Face Fascism. Postmodern Fascism. But there is little doubt anymore why the shape of the "conservative movement" in the 21st century is so familiar and disturbing: Its architecture, its entire structure, has morphed into a not-so-faint hologram of 20th-century fascism."

David Neiwert: The Rise of Pseudo Fascism, dneiwert.blogspot, September 19, 2004

[waioli kai]

Something from nothing. Not.

U.S. GNP, gross national product, is a convenient indicator (in $US) of the level of U.S. economic activity. The key phrase is "...a convenient indicator..." , describing total market value of the final goods and services produced by the nation's economy during a year.

The inherent nature of such goods and services is irrelevant. Whether goods like farm equipment, farm produce, washing machines; services like auto repair, healthcare, education; or 'goods' like diamond necklaces, race horses, designer suits; or services like hedge funds, cosmetic surgery, advertising ... present and future value to family, community, society, value to humanity is not what determines GNP value. Market value is the GNP scale of measurement. Market value has no direct correlation to intrinsic value or real value.

Market value is fantasy, imagined value expressed in US$ transactions, US$ themselves being of popularly accepted, albeit, fantasized worth.

A $US10 trillion GNP is a total of real and fantasy value, fantasy value be the greater and faster growing for the U.S. economy.

Even Alan Greenspan, longtime chairman of the U.S. central bank, is succumbing to the alchemic allure of the financial fantasy houses of the U.S. economy. Of course Corporate America has a lot to fear as baby-boomers start retiring from the workforce cashing out of their pensions and stockholdings. Corporate America will be in a hell of a lot worse shape down the road in the not-to-distant future than will be the government's social security system (given that the U.S. Treasury will not default on the bonds representing the monies it borrowed from, and interests due U.S. citizens' Social Security Trust Fund) unless they can mortally wound the Trust by diverting payroll SSI taxes directly to Corporate America.

Even if U.S. corporatist elite --including of course their political toadies and patsies-- succeed in crippling if not killing the SSI trust fund, diverting workers' SSI taxes and supposed matching contributions from employers...even if they succeed at pulling off that scam, they cannot alter a basic law of the universe:
"Thou Cannot Create Something From Nothing"
.

Decades of financial fraud, deceit and fiscal subterfuge have given the appearance that such a law does not apply to U.S. corporatist capitalism, that real value can be created from nothing. A seemingly eternal fountain of corporate mergers and divestitures, strategic sales and bankruptcies, has produced for some, for the time being, a general image of enhanced value, worth and substance of Corporate America. It is an image that the nation's corporate elites' Cheerleader in Chief is expected --indeed paid, by such elites of the corporatist democracy-- to capitalize on while the image, the illusion persists.

Something from nothing? That is exactly what the prophets of "private accounts" are preaching. They project there will only be two workers for every one retiree in a few decades and that neither workers' nor retirees'
(security of society in general is conveniently dismissed: an inherently Republican perspective)
financial security will be able to be honored by the government because the government will not be collecting enough revenue for that purpose due to the relatively (to now) small number of workers compared to retirees.

"However," say the 'private account' prophets, "there is wondrous magic in Wall Street !!
Wall Street is sure and everlasting in its ability to transform money into more and more money ! Wall Street has well served our domestic and foreign leisure class for years. Where money 'earns' money. Where money does all 'work' and all there is to share is money. Where two workers supporting one non-worker is a luxury of workforce. We are experts at creating something from nothing. Trust us with your future. We are your best, indeed your only, option if we bought the government we think we have. ''

[waioli kai]

U.S. militarist hegemony

"The elite demand more and more while the people get less and less, until finally the core group realizes the truth of it all and rejects the system outright."

I see neither the historical evidence to suggest nor the likelihood that a "core group (of elites) realizes (could intellectually realize) the truth of it all and rejects (is able to reject) the system outright." I cannot envision today's core group of corporatist elites to be all that concerned with truth except in that they can manage and control truth to yield a public consciousness which is not only tolerant of corporatist elitism, but worships corporatist elitism.
---

"When a civilization allows its servants to become its sovereigns, the course is pretty much set.
"For no matter how wealthy or crafty the elite, no matter how oppressed and defenseless the population, the elite will invariably push things past the breaking point. Once no one is left willing to carry out the order of the masters, their hold is broken utterly and they are swept away, victims of their own delusion."

Corporatist United States, judging from the quadrennial day of elections recently past and rhetorical headwinds before and afterward, instead of there becoming less domestic willingness to serve masters of the corporate state of the U.S., there is, at least rhetorically, an apparent willingness to serve.

A U.S. militarist hegemony without the necessity of U.S. foot soldiers in fields of combat and control is the U.S. militarists' goal. It is at least some years distant before the level of Space weaponization is achieved by the U.S. that allows for such zero U.S. causality warfare.

Meanwhile, there is an overextended U.S. military groundforce with constantly resupplying, repositioning U.S. Air Force and Navy virtually causality-free, extremely mobile war forces on alert for action; but, just focusing on U.S. ground forces, whose masters' need for their deployment is still acute for another decade or so, their masters are burning them with fraudulent contracts and missions. Who is going to volunteer for that without selling his or her soul for many thousand$ ? For sure most won't be for sale at any price, in which case only an unemployment-driven enlistment or conscription remedy will serve the masters' need for ground forces.

[waioli kai]

War communism

The quote

"Everything Lenin taught us about Communism was false; everything he taught us about Capitalism was true" --Russian proverb

is begging for some comments. One is that it perhaps would be more proper, to call it a Soviet proverb.

Another is to consider:

War Communism Lenin did not favour moving toward a socialist economy after October, because the Bolsheviks lacked the necessary economic skills. He preferred state capitalism, with capitalist managers staying in place but supervised by the work force. Others, like Bukharin, wanted a rapid transition to a socialist economy. The Civil War caused the Bolsheviks to adopt a more severe economic policy known as War Communism, characterized chiefly by the expropriation of private business and industry and the forced requisition of grain and other food products from the peasants. The Bolsheviks subsequently clashed with the labour force, which understood socialism as industrial self-management. (www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=38559)

U.S. Cold War propaganda on Communism was intent on passing off the Soviet wartime economy as "Communism", with a capital "c". However, The economy of the Soviet state was from birth a wartime economy. It was not communist, and (or, therefore...) it was not popularly democratic. It was totalitarian and in an industrialized-militarist century of Europe and the Pacific, it was militarist.

Without at least qualifying the word "Communism", it is absurd to say that either the economy or the political system of the Soviet state were Communist.

Communism was never intended to incorporate, nurture and perpetuate militarism, militarist ideals requiring secrecy, deception, land, resource procurements, industries and war-making products,, all nothing to do with Living which is what Communism is all about.

That is one thing the U.S. right-wing, conservatives, neo-cons or whatever they and their followers call themselves, do have correct: Socialism leads to Communism, like condoms lead to sex. What they refuse to allow, on pain of death (near invariably, deaths of someone other than themselves) , is for for corporatist capitalism to peacefully, and naturally, evolve to Socialism then Communism. Nothing needs to die into nothingness, as the Chinese are manifesting on their own course, and, for the most part, on their own timeframe, without militarist forces beating on their front or flanks.

[waioli kai]

militarist hegemon obsessively fantasizes

Militarist U.S. Israel hegemony obsessively fantasizes.

"U.S. Israel will benefit proportionate to the degree to which the Middle East does embrace popular democracy."

The benefit, however, is not an alleged benefit on which the U.S Israel nationalist, corporatist, militarist hegemon obsessively fantasizes. Minus the U.S. state of Israel, no popular democratic majority in the Middle East is either suddenly or inevitably going to vote in favor of U.S. Israel forces, adventures, intrigues in Southwest Asia. Leaders of the U.S. Israel hegemon know that to be a fact, notwithstanding all of their flatulent rhetoric about freedom, morality, international law, human rights, democracy, and so forth.

So why do they, the leadership of the hegemon, persist with such nonsense? Because they want to pre-empt the inevitable rise of viable popular democracies with their own versions of democracies, U.S. corporatist ones.

Well then, what is to be the benefit for U.S. Israel from fledgling democracies in the Middle East continuing toward popular democracy? The benefit will be that U.S. Israel will have to cease fantasizing about a world of their own making, and they would have to accept the world as the peoples of the world choose it to be. Once U.S. Israel comes to grips with the real nature of, hopes and dreams of, the vast majority of humanity, which ever more true democracies will reveal, U.S. Israel will be able to allow the majority of its own citizens to pursue non-militarist, morally and socially progressive political agendas.

It impossible to prove that the United States is worse off today than it would have been without the 1860's Civil War; it is impossible to prove that the Lincoln-led North's destruction of civilization in the South was not necessary in order to end slavery in the Confederacy; and now, it is impossible to prove whether or not the peoples of Iraq would of themselves have prevailed on a course of popular democracy without first being destroyed by warmongers of the U.S. Israel Alliance.

[waioli kai]

Lebanon's Prime Minister Resigns

Lebanon's Prime Minister Resigns:

' Demonstrators in Beirut's Martyrs Square chanted, "Syria out! Syria out!" after Prime Minister Omar Karami announced his resignation in a speech aired by the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation.

In his speech, Karami said he would have won a no-confidence vote scheduled for later in the day, but was resigning to avoid making his government a stumbling block to peace.

The country's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, now must pick a prime minister to form a new government until scheduled elections in May.
"We are still following the rules of the constitution," said Farid Abboud, the Lebanese ambassador to the United States.

"We will manage to weather the storm peacefully and change course, maybe, or resume our political life normally without violence." ' (www.cnn.com)

Hopefully Lebanon must only manage to weather the storm in its present dimensions, and, will be able to do so as Syria is allowed to diminish its heretofore stabilizing influence in Lebanon following the wars and chaos of the 1970's and 80's. It is hard to believe, however, that foreign governments and interests will try to tweak their way the outcome of unrest in Lebanon, if indeed the assassination of Hariri was not a covert action designed for that very purpose.

- - -

"And how should Syria be handled?"

Well, the U.S. Ambassador to Syria is on an indefinite vacation and Israel only has spies, sabateurs and drones in Syria, so whatever is to be "handled" in Syria by U.S. Israel at this point would be outside the conventions and covenants of international law. But then, that is the norm.

[waioli kai]

Occupation casualties comparison

"... if Syria has troops in Lebanon, it's no different than Bush keeping troops in Iraq."

There is a huge difference between the manner in which Syria came to occupy Lebanon and the manner in which United States came to occupy Iraq. There is also a huge difference between the numbers of Lebanese casualties consequent Syria's occupation of Lebanon and the numbers of Iraqi casualties consequent United States's occupation of Iraq. Sixteen years' worth of such casualties in Lebanon due to Syria's occupational forces equals some day's smallest totals of Iraqi casualties due to United States's occupation of Iraq.

[waioli kai]

Re: militarist hegemon obsessively fantasizes

Permitting the populace of occupied lands to vote up or down on the issue of their being occupied is a great idea. The peoples of the Philippines vetoed their state of occupation by U.S. Forces (via Status of Forces Agreement, SOFA, etc.)

When a sound, secure popular election results in a majority supporting the presence of the occupier, the occupier stays for a single generational advance in time until another such referendum for end of occupation is held. No hegemonical occupation shall be without its legitimacy of occupation being suPermitting the populace of occupied lands to vote up or down on the issue of their being occupied is a great idea. The peoples of the Philippines did that without a revolutionary war against the U.S.

When a sound, secure popular election results in a majority supporting the presence of the occupier, the occupier stays for a single generational advance in time until another such referendum for end of occupation is held. No hegemonical occupation shall be without its legitimacy of occupation being subjected to a popular vote of confidence in a rarely* less than and never more than single generation** time span.
Next peoples' end of occupation by popular referenda candidates for review:

Lebanon verses Syria security forces

Okinawa vs. U.S. Defense Department

Guam vs. U.S. Defense Department

Tahiti vs. France

Hawaiian Islands vs. U.S. Government

Marquesas vs. France

Alaska vs. U.S. Government

Puerto Rico vs. U.S. Government

Cuba vs. U.S. Government

Greenland vs. U.S. Government

Palestine vs. Israel

Syria vs. Israel

,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,,

... ....

[waioli kai]

Kinder, gentler occupation

"what are you like defending the Assads? They have had the kinder, gentler occupation for TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS!"

What? You have a mentally paralyzing math handicap? Prove something, if it is not that--->> Sixteen years' worth of such casualties in Lebanon due to Syria's occupational forces equals some day's smallest totals of Iraqi casualties due to United States' occupation of Iraq.
- - -

"... US has been in Iraq less than 24 months and we have handed back sovereignty and defended elections that were resoundingly supported by the Iraqi people."

Your " ... US has been in Iraq....and...we have handed back sovereignty" is not even trying to be sold by your US President. He is in a thirty percentile range of approval on his Social Security heist attempt...and that is barely half of a 66% popular vote it should require (and the President, via advises and US hegemonic strategies ... to institutionalize the Corporatist Tax*8 on employees of "executives" of that corporatist, militarist state you claim "handed back sovereignity, resoundingly supported by the Iraqi people."
- - -

"... US military is the greatest force for freedom in history."

Who is one to dispute your " the greatest force in history" claim ? "For freedom" needs to qualified. Freedom for US is the greatest freedom, right ? Freedom for US is preeminent to all others' freedoms. Freedom for US is not a stardard, it is a state of being personified in US Americans, and, as such, it is something which can only be divined by US onto those peoples of less fortunate insightful, humane, engaged, progressive, freedom-loving, prosperous leadership than US, right?
- - -

** Corporatist Tax, proposed as "Savings", "Personal Account", "Private Account"...a tax on employee wages to go directly to corporatist accounts, being a much more efficient system of corporate welfare, bypassing both the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Congress.

.

[waioli kai]

Social Security heist attempt

" ... US has been in Iraq....and...we have handed back sovereignty" is not even trying to be sold by your US President. On his Social Security heist attempt, he is in a thirty percentile range of approval ...and that is barely half of a 66% popular vote it should require (while initially the President, via advisers, US hegemonic strategists' projections, assumed they were beginning with at least a 51% level of approval number like the number% of popular votes that kept the Executive Branch in corporatist Republican hands) to institutionalize the Corporatist Tax** on employees of "executives" of that corporatist, militarist state you claim "handed back sovereignty, resoundingly supported by the Iraqi people."