When is a red line more of a grey area?

[kandrathe]

If Syria uses chemical weapons we "threatened" it would be a "red line" that would result in possible US intervention.

“We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Obama said at an Aug. 20 news conference. He added: “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

Last week we've heard from or President, that indeed chemical weapons were used, but we don't know enough to determine what was used, who used them, when, how much, etc.

Is it just me, or does this seem like the US is making the same type of idle threats made by some of the worlds worst dictators? I think it makes us look like either we drew a red line without understanding, or we are unwilling to follow through. Either way, it makes us appear weak. I'm not an interventionist, so I was mostly against the "red line" talk in August. We already blew it with how we handled Libya, and then the Benghazi incident... Which was all about not so secret arms deals. In the wake of it, we've seen Libyan weapons proliferate all over the region, in Gaza, in Niger, in Somalia, and in Syria. For all the war merchants who sold arms to all the shady characters, the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. The same weapons sold to them (by US and Europeans) in the name of peace will be re purposed into instruments of terror.

My prediction is that Bashar Al Asad will eventually be extracted by Russia, and there will be a power vacuum. Russia is pressured to move away from Asad diplomatically, while Hezbollah is pledging support, and then there is Iran.

In that scenario, then Syria would probably become another Libya, and Egypt with a defacto Hezbollah run pseudo military theocracy. And, these are more havens for radical islam to spawn anti-western terrorism in Europe and the US.

[Taem]

This really upsets me. It makes the president look like a bumbling fool - sorry to say - that lacks the fervor of his supposed convictions. Of course the reality is that after what happened in Egypt/Libya, America does not want to waste it's time in another war in which we have a country we helped just turn around and burn our flag immediately after. If I had my druthers, I'd say let them fight their own wars as we did in our country, but because of the statement Obama made about crossing the "red line," I feel we are obligated to help now with the burden of proof exposed! If we do not react after that big hoopla of a press conference, then what are we saying to the rest of the world? If Obama does not act, then I would question his leadership abilities because his inaction in this matter after what he swore to us, Syria, and the world is unforgivable, and other countries will exploit this "weak" president, which to me is completely intolerable! I sincerely hope this administration is only biding its time until a solution presents itself and then jumps at the first sign of action and takes it because if they do not, I fear this will spell poor relations with... well with the rest of the world! And if this administration waits too long, the situation will be just as bad! Don't get me wrong, America is in an extremely unfavorable position here; if we help the rebels and they turn out to be Al Qaeda (which is a very real possibility), then we just made the situation WORSE... but IMO doing nothing after what was said is unforgivable and would just show how pathetic this administration really is at foreign affairs, which to me is the far worse option.

EDIT: And that reminds me, with the situation that occurred in Korea, we all know Kim was posturing, however if that had happened on the Bushs' watch, Regan, possibly Carter's or Clintons - i.e. Korea loading nukes to it's missile facilities on the beaches and pointing them toward us - these other presidents would have sent war ships out to the Korea to say, "are you seriously going to fuck with us?" What did the Obama administration do? Offered aid. I'm all for peace, but this president is becoming the world's pushover. What's next? China demands we give up Hawaii and we we decide to give them partial ownership rights? <-sarcasm> N.Korea is a fly on the wall compared to other great nations and if N.Korea was allowed to point missiles at our great nation without any kind of display of military might from us, then again, what does this say to other nations? You don't hear about this in the American media, but I'm sure there's talk in other countries about the pushover American president. And the handling of the US Consulate attack in Libya? Sorry, I'm ranting. I voted for Obama because I wanted to see change; I just wish he had more of an iron fist!

[kandrathe]

This really upsets me. It makes the president look like a bumbling fool - sorry to say - that lacks the fervor of his supposed convictions. Of course the reality is that after what happened in Egypt/Libya, America does not want to waste it's time in another war in which we have a country we helped just turn around and burn our flag immediately after.

Well, it takes a bit more than an old flag burning or other insult to push me there. It's one thing to put your own life on the line to defend your own honor or dignity, but quite another to commit the lives of other peoples children. When people are insensitive, brutish, crude or abusive, it reveals more about them, than those they are berating.

If I had my druthers, I'd say let them fight their own wars as we did in our country, but because of the statement Obama made about crossing the "red line," I feel we are obligated to help now with the burden of proof exposed! If we do not react after that big hoopla of a press conference, then what are we saying to the rest of the world?

Two things. Either, we are more bark than bite, or we are being more careful before getting involved in yet another middle east conflict with no overwhelming national interest.

It reminds me... I used to have the scariest dog growing up. She had two "alert" modes -- one when she just wanted to let us know that there was a stranger near so she'd bark, and in the second one she'd go silent when she was protecting us. Many times we'd rescue a harried salesman, tax assessor, or local minister pinned between our screen door, and the entry door with a 250 lb coal black dog looking them square in the face just making a low growling noise. So, I don't mind a little bit of bark (to tell them to use a little common sense), but these ultimatums can make us look real foolish. I always liked the symbolic gesture of putting 1 to 3 carrier strike groups off the coast performing training maneuvers. It's also much easier to get a little eyes on target intelligence, as well as bringing in the best of signal intelligence.

If Obama does not act, then I would question his leadership abilities because his inaction in this matter after what he swore to us, Syria, and the world is unforgivable, and other countries will exploit this "weak" president, which to me is completely intolerable! I sincerely hope this administration is only biding its time until a solution presents itself and then jumps at the first sign of action and takes it because if they do not, I fear this will spell poor relations with... well with the rest of the world! And if this administration waits too long, the situation will be just as bad!

I think his problem is that he doesn't really lead, he has a coalition of advisers and his fractured positions reflect the one he listened to the most that day. More likely this administration is looking for the narrow road of looking tough without having to get into a fight. It works until they call your bluff... Bluff blown, and so now what?

Don't get me wrong, America is in an extremely unfavorable position here; if we help the rebels and they turn out to be Al Qaeda (which is a very real possibility), then we just made the situation WORSE... but IMO doing nothing after what was said is unforgivable and would just show how pathetic this administration really is at foreign affairs, which to me is the far worse option.

The dominant opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, led by Mohammad Riad al-Shaqfeh. So, yes, militant Islamist. Russia is meeting with them, so it might be that this will be the dominant political force to emerge. They had counted on Iran to back them in an uprising about 20 years ago, but Iran back Assad, and alienate the MB in Syria. They may be closer to MB in Egypt. http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=48370

EDIT: And that reminds me, with the situation that occurred in Korea, we all know Kim was posturing, however if that had happened on the Bushs' watch, Regan, possibly Carter's or Clintons - i.e. Korea loading nukes to it's missile facilities on the beaches and pointing them toward us - these other presidents would have sent war ships out to the Korea to say, "are you seriously going to fuck with us?" What did the Obama administration do? Offered aid. I'm all for peace, but this president is becoming the world's pushover.

It's not the first time we've responded to DPRK's tantrums with fuel and food aid. Bad behavior is how they get our attention now, because it works.

N.Korea is a fly on the wall compared to other great nations and if N.Korea was allowed to point missiles at our great nation without any kind of display of military might from us, then again, what does this say to other nations? You don't hear about this in the American media, but I'm sure there's talk in other countries about the pushover American president.

We don't hear hardly anything in the US media. I actually believe there are some in our military/political establishment who'd like to see DPRK fire their fledgling missile. We've come along, long, long way down the anti-missile missile technologies, so I believe we'd really like to show them (and China, and Russia) how impotent missiles have become. We've given all our friends the new stuff making them pretty safe from the low tech stuff of the 2nd and 3rd tier belligerent states.

And the handling of the US Consulate attack in Libya? Sorry, I'm ranting. I voted for Obama because I wanted to see change; I just wish he had more of an iron fist!

What is a shame there is the administrations total lack of transparency even when the veil of secrecy had been entirely shattered. I didn't vote for Obama because I didn't think he had enough experience (or John McCain cuz he's just crazy), but I'd rather not see another "tough guy" in the Whitehouse. I'm more in favor of us having a pleasant "smart guy". Where Obama shined lately was in his passionate speeches related to the Boston bombing. He's a great orator, and he is smart and a quick learner. But, it takes more than that to run this country and in fact, good orator is more of a "nice to have" feature, but not as crucial as wisdom and experience.

[LochnarITB]

Last week we've heard from or President, that indeed chemical weapons were used, but we don't know enough to determine what was used, who used them, when, how much, etc.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not one to want to discuss politics. However, when I first saw reports of this, I had one question about the reality of it. Do we actually know chemical weapons were used? The reports I saw were that tests indicated such chemicals in war victims' systems. If a country had their own agenda, what is to say they would not falsify reports or even seed victims with chemicals to guarantee such test results?

Billy: "Daddy, Timmy hit me!" Daddy: "Timmy, you're grounded." Timmy: "But, Daaddd, I didn't do anything!"

[shoju]

Peronsally, I'm pretty tired of the position that we (the US) has taken in trying to be the world's police force. I'm done, I'm over it. I'm actually, pretty damn tired of it. The US's policies have reminded me of this girl I went to high school with. Everyone who wasn't her friend, considered her a real meddlesome bitch.

Because, she had this insane habit of getting involved in her friends drama.
And then her friend's friend's drama
And then some drama that might of sort of, almost possibly been related to a friend of a friend of a friend.
And then some drama that didn't involve a friend at all, but involved one of her friend's enemies.

Seriously. She was a meddlesome pain in the ass. And on some level, that's sort of where I feel the US has been headed / is at with it's foreign policy. And this isn't just an Obama thing. This has been going on as long as I can actively remember, and I'm sure if we go back far enough, we could question involvement in a lot of conflicts, arguments, loud disagreements, that have gone on since at least the 20th century and the US' foreign Policy (I'll readily give you, and even go so far as to say that I'm not including involvement in either WWI or II in this generalization)

Maybe it's a factor of my age, and how I perceive things. The first real.... "war" that I remember in my lifetime was "Desert Storm". I was 10 when the Gulf War stuff got heated up in August of 1990, and 11 when it finished the following April. I was born in 1979, so I'm sure that plays a part in my perspective. I know more about Vietnam from talking to my father (who was in it) than I did in school, and more about WWII from my Grandfather, than from in School.

But anyway. If it were me, The Syria Mess is not ours to fix. Going in with the idea that the US has currently (HERE! Let us fix you, and then give you the grand idea of "democracy!") just sort of irks me.

[FireIceTalon]

U.S. foreign policy has been this way since the Spanish-American War, with a small lapse following the first international bourgeois war (WWI) when the US became isolationist for a time since American capital was sitting pretty as a result. But of course the fact it was temporary was preordained, since the accumulation of capital will inevitably need to spread to counter the contradictions seen in monopoly-competition and the falling rate of profits. And when this happens, you get war.

Our foreign policy isn't about expanding democracy - it never was, nor could it be since 'free markets' and democracy cannot co-exist. Democracy is merely a slogan (one of many) used to justify US Imperialism and the expansion of private capital and markets beyond US borders, and to help make politicians and special interest groups richer at the cost of many working class sons and daughters lives (here and abroad) being expendable. Now the little guys are starting to stand up to the guy with the big stick, and we don't like it. And while I do not like the political regimes of places like N. Korea, Syria or Iran anymore than I do the US, there are no such things as 'great nations' or 'inferior nations' - false dichotomy. There are only powerful nations and nations exploited by said powerful nations. The whole concept of 'American exceptionalism' and the idea that we are somehow superior to the rest of the world is a load of shit, spawned from the whole Christian philosophical concept of 'Manifest Destiny'. Frankly, I find the whole thing repulsive.

You guys really expected change by voting in another bourgeois politician? As if they have the power (or even desire) to create change? Yea, maybe the CHUMP CHANGE you have in your pocket, and thats about it. Even that is probably giving them too much credit. Any thought that one person, whatever they may be, can even begin to change things (be it for better or worse) is nothing more than 'great man' theories nonsense.

[Taem]

If it were me, The Syria Mess is not ours to fix. Going in with the idea that the US has currently (HERE! Let us fix you, and then give you the grand idea of "democracy!") just sort of irks me.

I'm in agreement with you on this part, however not after what Obama said (the link is separate from what I quoted, so read them both if you want).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5749...red-line-/

"I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command -- the world is watching," President Barack Obama said during a speech at the National Defense University in Washington.

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable," he said.


Earlier on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a similar warning:

"I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people," she said. "But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."

To "cross a red line" means to go to war! That is not a statement that should be thrown around lightly; we are not North Korea! Obama's threats and inaction are intolerable! He knew the stakes going into this mess with Russia and Syria, yet he choose to make this bellicose statement to the world. He could have said nothing, or pledged to offer support to rebels who support America instated of saying what he said!

---

Last week we've heard from or President, that indeed chemical weapons were used, but we don't know enough to determine what was used, who used them, when, how much, etc.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not one to want to discuss politics. However, when I first saw reports of this, I had one question about the reality of it. Do we actually know chemical weapons were used? The reports I saw were that tests indicated such chemicals in war victims' systems. If a country had their own agenda, what is to say they would not falsify reports or even seed victims with chemicals to guarantee such test results?

Billy: "Daddy, Timmy hit me!" Daddy: "Timmy, you're grounded." Timmy: "But, Daaddd, I didn't do anything!"

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29...se-to-u-s/

The UN has pictures of women and children murdered from these chemical weapons, not just male fighting insurgents like you make is sound.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26...AO20130426

That second article makes it seem like they are unsure, but then you read the first article and realize these are the people who had the Sarin testing done on them and you realize with 100% certainty Syria is using these weapons on women and children to demoralize it's citizens and we have proof.

[FireIceTalon]

I find patriotism in general to be idiotic and reactionary, but your blind patriotism is actually very worrisome. You are so eager to go head on into a war with nations that you have NO clue to the degree with which they hate us, guns blazing without thinking about the consequences. To say N. Korea is all talk is presumptuous.

Get your head out of the sand. No one wins in a war - all participants lose, just some more than others. Well, there are winners actually - those who make all the decisions - everyone else loses.

[Taem]

I find patriotism in general to be idiotic and reactionary, but your blind patriotism is actually very worrisome. You are so eager to go head on into a war with nations that you have NO clue to the degree with which they hate us, guns blazing without thinking about the consequences. To say N. Korea is all talk is presumptuous.

Get your head out of the sand. No one wins in a war - all participants lose, just some more than others. Well, there are winners actually - those who make all the decisions - everyone else loses.

You have mistaken blind patriotism for blind rage! I won't lie, I'm naturally a vindictive person at heart although after having kids, this had changed quite a bit however I still find the actions of this administration intolerable. I've always been the type of person where if someone were to point a gun at me, they better be ready to die. I was never a big guy, but I also wasn't afraid and this got me into quite a few fights where the "bigger" guy had a mental image in his head of winning over me and couldn't conceptually conceive of loosing to me, so when I had successfully defended myself, my attacker could not comprehend it and kept the assault up expecting me to falter. Of course the natural escalation would have been for me to take up arms and vice versa until one of us were dead, but thankfully the yard duty came . My point is that I learned early on to "go for the throat," or better put, to not drag out a fight because doing so would either cause third party intervention, or cause me to loose once the bigger guy got his friends so I went for the kill (figuratively) immediately if somebody fucked with me. I found grabbing their larynx/adams apple with both hands and squeezing as hard as I could while concurrently kneeing them in the abdomen or scrotum netted a 100% win ratio, but if I just stopped there, they would seek revenge later in the day, so I had to put the fear of god into them by choking them until they were almost unconscious - which in itself was pretty annoying because they would be hitting me in the head the whole time - then while they lay on the floor, kick the shit out of them. I honestly never had any issues with people after that because they knew what type of person they were fucking with - that if they attacked me, I'd attack them WORSE, so it was better to just leave me alone! You see, I have this mentality and always have, and most likely always will, and if I were a leader and someone pointed a gun at me, I'd fucken shoot them, no questions asked! You threaten me with real or perceived violence against me or my family and you better be ready to die because I'm going to assume you're serious and that the situation is only going to escalate and that my only option is to kill you before you kill me. This is why I think the president is a pansy, because Kim was allowed to point his nukes at us and he (Obama) did nothing about it! Because if I made a "red line" THREAT, I'd follow through with it that I promise you. To me, it is our (as a country) moral obligation to follow through with what we said we would! Talk is cheap, but actions make the character, so we can now really see what type of person Obama really is! And you call this patriotism on my part? I feel like you're just reaching to make another one of your communist points and derail yet another conversation once again. You don't know me or where I'm coming from so making these grandiose assessments of me and my personal opinions is more worrisome to me than your perceived notions of me. And like I said in my prior post, Obama could have just kept his mouth shut or just promised aid, but instead choose to issue a threat! He's the one who chose his words and was "eager" to escalate this situation with Syria to a war. Like I said (again), I was fine with letting them fight their own war, but now that Obama made that statement, it's time to man up!

[FireIceTalon]

But blind rage accomplishes little also, nor does your tough guy persona impress me.

I deplore EVERY administration, because the state is an instrument and symptom of class oppression. That being said, Obama nor any other president can just go around bombing or invading any country they feel like. If we did that, humanity would have destroyed itself long ago, and I am thankful that someone like you has not assumed a high position of power. If you were president, you'd start WWIII because of your hot temper, resulting in the ruin of many people's lives - all for the purpose of fulfilling your outrageous, machismo ego.

Admittedly, I also have a bit of a temper (most of us to some degree do), but I'm also rational and know how to usually keep it in check. It actually takes a lot to set me off, though when it does happen, it aint' pretty. Though sometimes just thinking about the anti-human actions and injustices that occur as a result of the capitalist system can get my blood boiling. But I'm not going to go out and shoot every capitalist or business owner I see either, or start fights with every conservative working class person I see because their false consciousness and shallow understanding of how the world works frustrates me.

My comments have nothing to do with making a "communist point" - they are a materialist critique of capitalist social relations, so how can they possibly be reaching? It has nothing to do with communism, since we live in a capitalist (for the time being) society. Nowhere in my post did I mention communism (my signature doesn't count), let alone give any phrase to it.

Also, your whole "man up" comment about Obama is extremely reactionary and quite offensive, since a man, according to your rationale, must be a "wimp" or a "sissy" or a "pussy" if he takes a passive or non-aggressive approach on a conflict of some sort. The comment is a reflection of the stereotype perpetuated in our culture of masculine superiority. Your very choice of language shows the influence capitalist social relations and its cultural hegemony has on you.

[kandrathe]

Do we actually know chemical weapons were used? The reports I saw were that tests indicated such chemicals in war victims' systems. If a country had their own agenda, what is to say they would not falsify reports or even seed victims with chemicals to guarantee such test results?

Yes, Syria denies even having chemical weapons, and always has denied ever having them at all. It is in their best interest to make the situation as confusing as is possible. Who me? Not me! I don't even have them. It was them.

This is what I saw Obama say... From UK news...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1nYLS8hC0I

And, it is corroborated by Turkish PM (and Isreal, but I'm discounting them for now as they've a vested interest in dragging us into every Middle East squabble).
Al-Assad uses chemical weapons, says Turkish PM Erdoğan

From what I understand, there are reports that the nerve toxin Sarin gas was used, however in order to "prove it" you must test clothing or soil within 2 to 48 hours depending on the temperature. It degrades rapidly. But, I'd think with autopsies, or video evidence we'd be able to be more confident that something killed a mass of otherwise healthy people who aren't blown up, riddled with bullets or burned.

Now. I think I must view the MP sketch of Denise the repressed peasant yet again.

[Taem]

@FireIceTalon

A very well thought out reply to my obvious eccentric and confrontational rantings; I respect that greatly. I don't feel like I have a "hot temper" so to speak, but when provoked in a way I perceive as threatening, I becomes immediately enraged to the point I feel all logic and fear flee my body and all I see is red and my objectives become very clear. But it takes quite a bit to get me to that point. I might take this opportunity to point out that as a manager, I respect all my employees greatly and I always "ask" them to do things that need to get done; I never bark orders at them unless it's dire so when I do "order" them around, they know it's serious; I respect them and they respect me and I've been told that many times. I'd like to take a moment to point out that the hulk1 only comes out when I feel personally threatened in a way that will cause myself or someone I love bodily harm, not just because I don't feel listened to, disrespected, or something mundane like that.

As for my choice of words, yeah, perhaps it is a bit of brainwashing - when the incredible hulk1 takes over, the reactionary bit comes out (such as how you "react" when performing martial arts as opposed to thinking your moves out) and I learned that from where? Well, I don't really know; it feels like a kind of self-defense mechanism to me (the hulk bit), and then my whole way of thinking changes but where did I learn to use that choice of words? I suppose you make a truly excellent point there. I'll have to give this some more thought.... Obviously I was not enraged when I wrote that, but I was putting myself in the mindset by imagining myself in Obama's shoes and thinking what I'd do if I were him and, well you get the picture... Damn FIT, you really got me thinking here, lol. Why do you believe it's "capitalist social relations" that has got me thinking this way as opposed to something else? I mean, it's easy to blame a capitalist society when every form of media you can get your hands on reference money, greed, and power, but I'd argue these emotions are intrinsic to even the most noble of thinkers and that capitalism has nothing to do with it. I'm going to have to give this more thought.

1 - I'm using "the Hulk" references here as a metaphor for extreme anger only because it's a fun way to lift the mood and is equally fitting to this thread.

[FireIceTalon]

@FireIceTalon

A very well thought out reply to my obvious eccentric and confrontational rantings; I respect that greatly. I don't feel like I have a "hot temper" so to speak, but when provoked in a way I perceive as threatening, I becomes immediately enraged to the point I feel all logic and fear flee my body and all I see is red and my objectives become very clear. But it takes quite a bit to get me to that point. I might take this opportunity to point out that as a manager, I respect all my employees greatly and I always "ask" them to do things that need to get done; I never bark orders at them unless it's dire so when I do "order" them around, they know it's serious; I respect them and they respect me and I've been told that many times. I'd like to take a moment to point out that the hulk1 only comes out when I feel personally threatened in a way that will cause myself or someone I love bodily harm, not just because I don't feel listened to, disrespected, or something mundane like that.

As for my choice of words, yeah, perhaps it is a bit of brainwashing - when the incredible hulk1 takes over, the reactionary bit comes out (such as how you "react" when performing martial arts as opposed to thinking your moves out) and I learned that from where? Well, I don't really know; it feels like a kind of self-defense mechanism to me (the hulk bit), and then my whole way of thinking changes but where did I learn to use that choice of words? I suppose you make a truly excellent point there. I'll have to give this some more thought.... Obviously I was not enraged when I wrote that, but I was putting myself in the mindset by imagining myself in Obama's shoes and thinking what I'd do if I were him and, well you get the picture... Damn FIT, you really got me thinking here, lol. Why do you believe it's "capitalist social relations" that has got me thinking this way as opposed to something else? I mean, it's easy to blame a capitalist society when every form of media you can get your hands on reference money, greed, and power, but I'd argue these emotions are intrinsic to even the most noble of thinkers and that capitalism has nothing to do with it. I'm going to have to give this more thought.

1 - I'm using "the Hulk" references here as a metaphor for extreme anger only because it's a fun way to lift the mood and is equally fitting to this thread.

What else could it be, hehe? My thoughts on human nature have been stated before but I think it's worth a repeat just to drive my point home: our nature is not a innate and static concept that remains unchanged over time - it is a reflection of current material conditions, and is dynamic in that it changes when said material conditions also change. As a result, cultural stereotypes and the very language we use have plenty of vestiges of capitalist social relations. Money, greed and power do develop as social constructs from the existence and operations of class oppression and alienation, but they are hardly a naturally occurring phenomena that is intrinsic to the human essence. It doesn't even have to be capitalism necessarily, it can be ANY class based system. The reason I mention capitalism is because that is the current system in which we live, and therefore the most relevant one to critique. It is true that some forms of reactionary thought pre-date the capitalist mode of production, in particular gender inequalities and discrimination of women were around long before capitalism was. Nevertheless, capitalism does a splendid job at perpetuating this relationship (even if it takes a different form than in prior economic systems).

Most (though not all) types of social estrangement and stereotypes of today are unique to capitalism, and even those that aren't certainly operate differently than they did in other class based systems. If you compare the class system of the Roman Republic for instance, which was predominantly a slave society, there wasn't a system of institutional racism (that I know of anyways) in its class structures. The reason is because it wasn't a necessary process for that particular mode of production - the class you were born into was pretty much the class you were forever regardless of your skin color. A slave was a slave, race did not matter. Capitalism works differently. Unlike slave society, where people themselves were the property, capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and societies resources. Divisions of labor and ideology are useful for keeping the working class divided and in competition with one another, and so workers become alienated from both one another and from the commodities that their labor produces. Labor itself is commodified, also. Capitalists, although much better off than workers, are also alienated from their true nature in their endless pursuit for more power, profit and social prestige, and because they compete with one another, this requires at some point more exploitation of the working class (such as reduction of wages) which typically effects workers that are already worse off to begin with (minorities, women, etc) because of the labor divisions. Basically, you cannot have capitalism without a racial caste system - it is materially impossible. Capitalism therefore, by its very nature, is a racist system - I know this sounds reductionist but it has historically and scientifically been proven as fact.

You say the media is responsible for these problems, but the media itself is part of the capitalist system...and in fact, it is a tool within it used for promoting capitalist ideologies and agendas. Critical thinking in a bourgeois-liberal framework is undermined from the get go, because the moment you critique the capitalist system, you are shunned in some way and all critical thinking at that point must stop. I think most people in general mean well and would like to see things like racism, war, poverty, and all the other horrible things we see, gone. But most of their ideas are utopian or idealistic in nature (this is particularly true of 'liberals', social-democrats, and libertarians) - you can't get rid of these things without destroying capitalism, or any system of class antagonisms for that matter, first. A big reason for the shortcomings of non-Marxist interpretations is the fact they view these problems to exist in a vacuum and independent of one another, instead of them being inextricably linked to capitalism's processes. Thus, their solutions, while perhaps well intended, simply just end up perpetuating the problems instead of fixing them. These are not problems that can be fixed by superficial solutions independent of one another (which is why 'The War on x problem' approach is completely useless), they are all intertwined in a large, complicated historical context and process.

This is where Marxism comes in, because it teaches critical thinking in an entirely different way: through the use of dialectical thinking. To better understand how our very thinking, culture and behavior is shaped by the prevailing social relations and its agencies, you could look at Marx's concept of society by examining two components that he called Base and Superstructure. Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony and Lous Althusser's "Ideological State Apparatus are very interesting as well, I think these would be useful for you in better understanding many of my posts in these sort of topics.

Trust me, I don't critique this system just for the hell of it or to try and troll, I do it because a lot of how we think may seem like it is from some abstract source, but it really isnt and thats what im pointing out. I myself, even as a Marxist, still have bourgeois influence on me, because like you, I also have been raised in a capitalist society, so naturally I am going to have some reflections of it. I went through a number of political phases in my life but when I discovered Marxism it just made the most sense to me, primarily because it is a materialist explanation and analysis of history and social development, instead of an idealist one like most others. The only difference is that I am more aware of it than most, and I try to shed and distance myself from reactionary influences. For the most part I have been pretty successful but every now and then I may say or do something that might make a fellow comrade cringe, but I try not to It certainly is not an easy cycle to break or overcome because everywhere you go there is capitalist and reactionary ideology all around you, and there is plenty of anti-Marxist dogma to go along with it.

In short, capitalism has everything to do with it. Don't take my previous post too personally, because it is nothing against you as a person. Do I think you are brainwashed a bit? To be brutally honest, yes (though I have seen much worse). But at the same time, it isn't really your fault. All the agencies and institutions in our society have a very specific agenda to promote and uphold, so it is very very easy to be mislead, unfortunately. We've had decades (centuries?) of capitalist propaganda pounded into our heads from even a very young age, and have been told this system is good for everyone and there are no viable alternatives. So many just blindly accept it, and all the problems that come along with it. The good news is, is that you CAN break away from it, even if doing so is very difficult. The first thing I did, and this was even before I became a full-fledged Marxist, was reducing the amount of mainstream media from my news diet. Now I avoid it like cancer, even though as I stated before, I probably still have small vestiges of bourgeois thought. I certainly make a conscious effort not to, though.

[DeeBye]

Yep, same old Lounge.

[kandrathe]

Yep, same old Lounge.

Call me reactionary one more time.

In Marxist terminology, reactionary is a pejorative adjective denoting people whose ideas might appear to be socialist, but, in essence, contain elements of feudalism, capitalism, nationalism, fascism or other characteristics of the ruling class.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Partially true, but it is not limited to those whose ideas appear to be socialist but really aren't, it also refers to those who have blatantly conservative or right-wing views such as fascists. From a Marxist perspective, social democrats are reactionary because they still want to keep capitalism intact, even if they want to make it more "fair". As are "utopian" socialists (those think socialism can be achieved by non-revolutionary means - which of course it cannot). Certain tendencies WITHIN Marxism are even viewed as reactionary if they ultimately are revisionist and betray too many of the core tenants of orthodox/classical Marxism. I don't subscribe to any particular tendency of Marxism, since I dislike sectarianism in general and view it as a major barrier for the revolutionary left. I guess I'm sort of a cross between an orthodox Marxist and what many conservatives today would refer to as a 'cultural Marxist' and/or Critical Theorist. In any case, both Stalinism and Maoism are very reactionary to me, especially the latter, which is little better than caricature of Marxism, and resembles a form of 'Radical chinese nationalism' more than it does Marxism. And Stalinism is little more than 'state-capitalism' wrapped in a red flag. Thankfully Stalinists and Maoists make up only a very tiny minority of Marxists.

But there are different degrees of being reactionary admittedly. A person who wants a feudalist organization of society would not only be a reactionary by Marxist standards, but by bourgeois liberalism standards as well.

[kandrathe]

But there are different degrees of being reactionary admittedly.

It's like a Marxist epithet -- akin to being labeled by *real* Marxists as a "cultural Marxist". The Frankfort school, relocated to Columbia U - has spent 100 some years getting the Marx out of Marxism and re-branding it for college consumption(as well as Antonio Gramsci, and Gustavo Gutiérrez with liberation theology).

Obviously we are along way away from the original French revolutionaries use of it to describe the Catholic Church, and the Monarchy seeking to conserve the status quo.

I just substitute another pejorative synonym like "pig headed" or "unevolved" -- and I think that is how Marxists intend it to be read.

[eppie]

This really upsets me. It makes the president look like a bumbling fool - sorry to say - that lacks the fervor of his supposed convictions. Of course the reality is that after what happened in Egypt/Libya, America does not want to waste it's time in another war in which we have a country we helped just turn around and burn our flag immediately after. If I had my druthers, I'd say let them fight their own wars as we did in our country, but because of the statement Obama made about crossing the "red line," I feel we are obligated to help now with the burden of proof exposed! If we do not react after that big hoopla of a press conference, then what are we saying to the rest of the world? If Obama does not act, then I would question his leadership abilities because his inaction in this matter after what he swore to us, Syria, and the world is unforgivable, and other countries will exploit this "weak" president, which to me is completely intolerable! I sincerely hope this administration is only biding its time until a solution presents itself and then jumps at the first sign of action and takes it because if they do not, I fear this will spell poor relations with... well with the rest of the world! And if this administration waits too long, the situation will be just as bad! Don't get me wrong, America is in an extremely unfavorable position here; if we help the rebels and they turn out to be Al Qaeda (which is a very real possibility), then we just made the situation WORSE... but IMO doing nothing after what was said is unforgivable and would just show how pathetic this administration really is at foreign affairs, which to me is the far worse option.

EDIT: And that reminds me, with the situation that occurred in Korea, we all know Kim was posturing, however if that had happened on the Bushs' watch, Regan, possibly Carter's or Clintons - i.e. Korea loading nukes to it's missile facilities on the beaches and pointing them toward us - these other presidents would have sent war ships out to the Korea to say, "are you seriously going to fuck with us?" What did the Obama administration do? Offered aid. I'm all for peace, but this president is becoming the world's pushover. What's next? China demands we give up Hawaii and we we decide to give them partial ownership rights? <-sarcasm> N.Korea is a fly on the wall compared to other great nations and if N.Korea was allowed to point missiles at our great nation without any kind of display of military might from us, then again, what does this say to other nations? You don't hear about this in the American media, but I'm sure there's talk in other countries about the pushover American president. And the handling of the US Consulate attack in Libya? Sorry, I'm ranting. I voted for Obama because I wanted to see change; I just wish he had more of an iron fist!

You are oversimplifying this.
The North Korea diplomatics are going just fine. Maybe the US is being even to tough. They just should let them complain a bit and not give them too much incentive to let them escalate the situation.

About Syria....the issue is that you don't want to get problems with Russia, and that sadly it is very difficult to see who are the good guys and who the bad......likely both enemies are the bad guys here. Sadly, as always with wars, innocent civilians are the main victims.
The problems in Syria, and the whole region should have been solved 50 years ago, not now. Maybe now that the US is become more self-sufficient in energy things might actually lighten up a bit there.....but the whole region remains difficult. Once the US is gone, you hope that more and more people will see the US as friend instead of as enemy.

---

I find patriotism in general to be idiotic and reactionary, but your blind patriotism is actually very worrisome. You are so eager to go head on into a war with nations that you have NO clue to the degree with which they hate us, guns blazing without thinking about the consequences. To say N. Korea is all talk is presumptuous.

Get your head out of the sand. No one wins in a war - all participants lose, just some more than others. Well, there are winners actually - those who make all the decisions - everyone else loses.

You have mistaken blind patriotism for blind rage! I won't lie, I'm naturally a vindictive person at heart although after having kids, this had changed quite a bit however I still find the actions of this administration intolerable. I've always been the type of person where if someone were to point a gun at me, they better be ready to die. I was never a big guy, but I also wasn't afraid and this got me into quite a few fights where the "bigger" guy had a mental image in his head of winning over me and couldn't conceptually conceive of loosing to me, so when I had successfully defended myself, my attacker could not comprehend it and kept the assault up expecting me to falter. Of course the natural escalation would have been for me to take up arms and vice versa until one of us were dead, but thankfully the yard duty came . My point is that I learned early on to "go for the throat," or better put, to not drag out a fight because doing so would either cause third party intervention, or cause me to loose once the bigger guy got his friends so I went for the kill (figuratively) immediately if somebody fucked with me. I found grabbing their larynx/adams apple with both hands and squeezing as hard as I could while concurrently kneeing them in the abdomen or scrotum netted a 100% win ratio, but if I just stopped there, they would seek revenge later in the day, so I had to put the fear of god into them by choking them until they were almost unconscious - which in itself was pretty annoying because they would be hitting me in the head the whole time - then while they lay on the floor, kick the shit out of them. I honestly never had any issues with people after that because they knew what type of person they were fucking with - that if they attacked me, I'd attack them WORSE, so it was better to just leave me alone! You see, I have this mentality and always have, and most likely always will, and if I were a leader and someone pointed a gun at me, I'd fucken shoot them, no questions asked! You threaten me with real or perceived violence against me or my family and you better be ready to die because I'm going to assume you're serious and that the situation is only going to escalate and that my only option is to kill you before you kill me. This is why I think the president is a pansy, because Kim was allowed to point his nukes at us and he (Obama) did nothing about it! Because if I made a "red line" THREAT, I'd follow through with it that I promise you. To me, it is our (as a country) moral obligation to follow through with what we said we would! Talk is cheap, but actions make the character, so we can now really see what type of person Obama really is! And you call this patriotism on my part? I feel like you're just reaching to make another one of your communist points and derail yet another conversation once again. You don't know me or where I'm coming from so making these grandiose assessments of me and my personal opinions is more worrisome to me than your perceived notions of me. And like I said in my prior post, Obama could have just kept his mouth shut or just promised aid, but instead choose to issue a threat! He's the one who chose his words and was "eager" to escalate this situation with Syria to a war. Like I said (again), I was fine with letting them fight their own war, but now that Obama made that statement, it's time to man up!

Djeez,this reminds me of those antisocials or hooligans you sometimes see in TV programs saying 'yeah I am a very nice guy I won't hurt anyway, but if they touch me or my family I will kill them'. How reasonable this sound, usually these people are the ones that start fighting first.
The people that become aggressive when you accidentally bump against them in the street.
You probably don't mean it this way, but it for sure sounds like it.

[shoju]

Djeez,this reminds me of those antisocials or hooligans you sometimes see in TV programs saying 'yeah I am a very nice guy I won't hurt anyway, but if they touch me or my family I will kill them'. How reasonable this sound, usually these people are the ones that start fighting first.
The people that become aggressive when you accidentally bump against them in the street.
You probably don't mean it this way, but it for sure sounds like it.

I'm very similar in mindset to what you describe. I'm a pretty casual person. I wouldn't start a fight over bumping into me in the street (even though I have serious problems with people touching me that I don't know), but so help me, if you do something to my children, you'll want to change your name and hide.

Most parents are that way. It's a base sense of protectionism that goes as far back in humans (and most species that live in familial units) as you could track.

That doesn't make me antisocial, or a hooligan. That makes me a parent.

Now, how he meant it? I don't know. I think calling out the president because he said "That would be a red line" is a little over the top. Yes. We can sit idly by, and look at other avenues with which to address the problem. He never said:

"If you use chemical warfare, I'm going to send the Seals, and the Rangers, and the Marines in, and kick your ass so hard you'll be defecating through your mouth"

Calling for him to do that, "Because he Said" is just silly talk. Personally, I don't care what he said. We can talk with Russia, We can talk with other countries. We don't have to be the ones to get in the middle of another conflict that has absolutely NOTHING to do with us. It isn't our fight. it isn't our war. It's their's. Is it awful to see terrible things happen to civilians?

You bet.

But what is the difference between what is happening to these civilians, and what happens to people in our own country? Or those who get caught in the middle of the bloody as hell Cartel Wars in Mexico? Or the drug runners in Central America? Or the Civil Wars in Africa? Or those who stave to death in North Korea?

Nothing. They are all innocent people being terrorized by insane idiocy. Except the fact that their corner of the world (Syria) has a centralized theme of not liking us too much.

So, the answer here, is to not involve ourselves, because that is the type of thing that has only furthered to damage our reputation in the area. If we want to "play the hero" then why don't we start a little closer to home. Clean up our block, and then worry about helping others. Start with Mexico and Central America. Help those countries get a handle on problems that actually, you know, have an effect on our country.

Then, once we have our block in order, we can go off and worry about the innocent people stuck in a bad situation. We can't continue to try and champion everyone else's causes for them. We aren't big brother. We aren't the world police. We need to stop acting like it.

Yes, I'm sure that sounds a little cold, and isolationist.

Bad things happen to good people. It sucks. But we can't help everyone. Hell, some would argue we do a pretty piss poor job of helping our own.

[eppie]

I'm very similar in mindset to what you describe. I'm a pretty casual person. I wouldn't start a fight over bumping into me in the street (even though I have serious problems with people touching me that I don't know), but so help me, if you do something to my children, you'll want to change your name and hide.

This is a common and normal reaction from a parent. I don't think you need to explain this to someone. Protecting ones children is a natural thing, a rule of nature, hell evolution is based on this in a sort of way.....so why write this.
That is why I made my comment. Usually people that tell or write this are people that start beating up other for nothing.....the short fuse kind of person.
(I don't want to make this personal against meat because 'knowing' him here on the lounge he seems to be a nice guy).