L.P. wrote:
>
Has your falling rate of profit, something you cling to like Linus and
his security blanket, reached the point of no return so that H-Bombs are
necessary to open up Russia for foreign investment?
<
Sir, you may say any stupid, inaccurate thing you like about me, but
when you disrespect the genius Linus, you have gone too far.
Charlie wrote:
>
It is old news that the U.S. declares it may use nuclear weapons in a
first strike for so-called deterrence (which sounds like a
contradiction, but who says imperialists care about logic?). From five
years ago:
U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy
By Jonathan Weisman And Peter Spiegel, Wall Street Journal, April
6, 2010
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will release a new national
nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S.
nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use
nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations. But the new
policy will narrow potential U.S. nuclear targets, and for the first
time makes explicit the goal of making deterrence of a nuclear strike
the "sole objective" of U.S. nuclear weapons, a senior Obama
administration official said Monday.
...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790
The headline by David North's sect is just the opposite of what L.P.
calls it ("Any normal person looking in on the latest WSWS would pee in
their pants. US officials consider nuclear strikes against Russia? Holy
shit, this is serious business."). It is not a "pee in your pants"
falsehood but rather hype: something blared as new and awful is
actually old-hat awful.
That's the kind of dispute you get when you put together almost any two
persons who make a principle of anti-"Stalinism."
<
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
